Back
2022 Supreme(Jhk) 1435
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Navneet Kumar, J.
Ram Nawal Prasad and ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1448 of 2004
Decided On : 10-02-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. R.C.P. Sah, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering the testimonies of witnesses in an integrated manner to determine the innocence or guilt of the accused.
Headnote:
Conviction - Appeal against conviction under section 363 and 366 of IPC read with section 34 of IPC - [IPC 363, IPC 366, IPC 34] - The court analyzed the testimonies of witnesses and found that the accused appellants were innocent and were falsely implicated due to misunderstanding. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence were set aside.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the abduction of a 15-year-old victim who was forcibly taken from her house and later assaulted. The accused appellants were convicted under section 363 and 366 of IPC. The victim and her parents entered into a compromise, stating that the accused appellants were innocent and falsely implicated due to misunderstanding.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the testimonies of the victim, her father, and her mother consistently and uniformly established that the accused appellants were innocent and not involved in the offense. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence were deemed bad in law and set aside.
Issues: The main issue was the innocence of the accused appellants and whether they were falsely implicated due to misunderstanding.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the consistent and categorical testimonies of the victim and her parents, which established the innocence of the accused appellants and the misunderstanding leading to their false implication.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the accused appellants were set aside. The accused appellants were discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.
JUDGMENT :
The case was heard through video conferencing. None of the parties found any flaws with audibility/visibility during the course of hearing the matter.
2. This appeal is preferred against the Judgment of Conviction dated 13.08.2004 and order of sentence dated 18.08.2004 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTC No. III, Bokaro, in S.T. No.372 of 2003, arising out of B.S. City P.S. Case No.112 of 2003, corresponding to G.R. no.450 of 2003, whereby and where under, both the appellants namely Ram Nawal Prasad and Lalan Prasad (died during the pendency of this Appeal) were convicted under section 363 and 366 of IPC read with section 34 of IPC and further they were sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years under Section 363 of IPC and R.I. for 5 years for the offence under Section 366 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. Briefly stated the prosecution case was initiated by the victim aged about 15 years herself daughter of Ashok Kumar Singh, and in her written statement she disclosed that on 29.05.2003, while she was alone in her house, one Sunil Kumar Prasad including his father Ram Nawal Prasad and Sanjay Kumar Panday came to his house at about 12.00 AM, at the day hour. They forcibly told her to move with them and as such the said Sunil Kumar Prasad, after gagging her mouth by clothes abducted her and took her with him in the tracker of one Lalan Prasad to Chas where she was kept in a hut. It has further been stated that the accused persons allegedly assaulted her and forced her to write on the plain paper that she had solemnized marriage with Sunil Kumar Prasad on her own sweet will and she had no concern with her parents and accordingly out of fear she wrote on the paper and thereafter the said Sunil Prasad told her to bring money from her parents to take her to their home town in U.P. Thereafter on that very tracker was she was taken at B.S.L.L.H. more (crossing) and from where she managed to escape and reached at her house safely on 31.05.2003 and reported the entire episode with her parents and thereafter gave this written report to the police.
4. On the basis of the written report lodged by the victim Rekha Kumari, an FIR against the appellants along with Sunil Kumar Prasad and Sanjay Kumar Panday were lodged vide B.S. City P.S. Case No.112 of 2003, corresponding to G.R. no.450 of 2003 for the offence punishable u/s 366-A/34 of IPC and investigation was taken up and after investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in this case against these two appellants showing the rest two accused persons namely Sunil kumar Prasad and Sanjay Kumar Pandey absconder and the learned court of Magistrate split up the record of said absconder accused persons and cognizance of the offence was taken against these two appellants and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The accused persons denied the allegations made against them and pleaded not guilty to the charge explained to them and after trial, the learned court below passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is under challenge in this appeal.
5. Heard learned defence counsel Mr. R.C.P. Sah appearing on behalf of the appellants and learned A.P.P. Mrs. Vandana Bharti appearing on behalf of the State.
6. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, learned defence counsel contended that the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court is contrary to the fact and circumstance of the case and contrary to the settled principle of law and learned court below failed to appreciate the vital omission and commissions in the depositions of PWs and as such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Court below is fit to be set-aside. The learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that none of the witnesses supported the case of the prosecution including the victim P.W.3,her fat
