| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/519750 |
| Subject | Criminal |
| Court | Jharkhand High Court |
| Decided On | Feb-17-2004 |
| Case Number | Cr. A. No. 81 of 1998(R) |
| Judge | Hari Shankar Prasad, J. |
| Reported in | 2004CriLJ3431; [2005(2)JCR387(Jhr)] |
| Acts | Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 366 |
| Appellant | Manoj Kumar Munda |
| Respondent | The State of Bihar |
| Appellant Advocate | H.K. Shikarwar, Adv. |
| Respondent Advocate | V. Gopal, APP |
| Disposition | Appeal allowed |
Excerpt:
- constitution of india. articles 12 & 226: [m. karpaga vinayagam, c.j., narendra nath tiwari & d.p.singh, jj] writ petition - maintainability - whether state co-operative milk producers federation ltd., is a state within meaning of article 12 ? - held, from perusal of relevant rules of byelaws, it is clear that state government has no role to play either in policy decision for raising funds for federation or its expenditure and thus have no financial control. further there is nothing to indicate that government has any functional and administrative control over federation. state government has no role to play in matter of appointment of any of officials of federation including managing director. federation is totally independent in all respects and in no way subservient to state government in conduct of its business. federation in no way can be termed as agency of state government and does not come within meaning of article 12 of constitution. writ petitions against federation is not maintainable. - he is informant as well as father of uma kumari, the victim girl. it also appears from perusal of evidence of pw-2 that chauraha (junction) where uma kumari was talking to the appellant was not a lonely place and when she was threatened with dire consequences, she could have raised alarm and got the appellant caught or arrested, but she did not do like that. ) that she was having love affair with the appellant and she had gone here and there with the appellant with her sweet-will.hari shankar prasad, j.1. this appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31-3-1998 in sessions trial no. 120 of 1996 whereby and whereunder the learned judicial commissioner, ranchi held the appellant guilty under section 366 of the indian penal code and convicted and sentenced him to undergo ri for seven years.2. prosecution case is brief is that jaleshwar mahto, the informant gave a written report (ext. 1) to the officer-in-charge of hatia police station stating, inter alia therein that his daughter uma kumari everyday used to go to quarter no. b-32/3 for learning sewing and used to return back in time, but on 16-8-1995 when she did not return by 1.00 pm. then he inquired from one sunita kumari, friend of his daughter uma kumari and in course of inquiry he came to know that his daughter-uma kumari was returning with sunita kumari after learning sewing but in the way, manoj kumar munda (appellant) came before her and talked to her for sometime. thereafter, uma kumari asked sunita kumari to wait for sometime but she did not stay for long and came back her home. he doubted that his daughter has been kidnapped by the appellant manoj kumar munda. on this piece of written information, a case bearing hatia p.s. case no. 160 of 1995 under section 366, ipc dated 16-8-1995 was registered and i.o. after investigation submitted charge sheet in the case. cognizance in the case was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions and the learned court below recorded evidence of witness -- both oral and documentary and came to a finding and held the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.3. prosecution has examined altogether eight witnesses. pw-1 is jaleshwar mahto. he is informant as well as father of uma kumari, the victim girl. this, witness has stated that his daughter used to go to quarter no. 32-b/3 for learning sewing and used to return back from there in time, but on 16-8-1995 she did not return by 1.00 p.m. then he went to residence of friend of his daughter to inquire from her as to why his daughter has not returned back and in course of inquiry, he came to know that his daughter was also returning with her but in the way, the appellant manoj kumar munda came there and he talked with his daughter for sometime and thereafter his daughter asked sunita kumari to stay but she did not stay for long and came back her home and thereafter on suspicion he has lodged this case.4. pw-2 is rajesh kumar. he is brother of uma kumari and son of pw-1. he admits that place where appellant was talking to his sister, was not a lonely place, although he states that his sister told him that appellant had taken her here and there.5. pw-3 is brajesh kumar. he has been tendered for cross-examination. pw-4 is sunita kumari. she has totally denied in her evidence that there is any friend of the name of uma kumari. she has been declared hostile. pw-5 is shanti devi. she is the mother of uma kumari and wife of the informant (pw-1). she had admitted that she learnt from her daughter that manoj kumar munda, the appellant had taken her forcibly. pw-6 is the formal witness who has proved formal fir (ext.-2).6. pw-7 is the doctor who examined uma kumari, the victim girl. according to this doctor, she did not find any positive sign of rape on her and she opined her age to be between 18 to 19 years.7. pw-8 is uma kumari. she is the victim girl. she says that she came out of her house at 10.00 am for going to institute for learning sewing and at the end of the classes at 12.50 pm she was returning home with sunita kumari and when she reached near sector-iii, then manoj kumar munda, the appellant surrounded her and gave information to her that her friend is calling her. when she went to manoj munda, then he threatened her and made her sit on motorcycle and took her to tanki side where he talked to his friend and again took her to jaggannathpur. when on her request to take her to her home, he did not take her to her house and took her to the residence of his mama-mami. she admits that she did not raise alarm when she was being carried by the appellant on motorcycle. she admits that letter to be in her handwriting, which is marked (ext.-1), although she says that this letter was dictated to her at the residence of appellant's mama-mami. she admits that one letter was written in her blood and she says that mami-mami of appellant forced her to write letter and for that, they cut portion of her hand from where blood started oozing out.8. on this piece of evidence, learned judicial commissioner held the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.9. from perusal of evidence on record, it appears that sunita kumari has altogether denied knowing any friend of the name of uma kumari and she says that she does not know anything about uma kumari. it also appears from perusal of evidence of pw-2 that chauraha (junction) where uma kumari was talking to the appellant was not a lonely place and when she was threatened with dire consequences, she could have raised alarm and got the appellant caught or arrested, but she did not do like that. she further admits that while she was going on motorcycle with the appellant she did not raise alarm, but further admits from the letter (marked ext.) that she was having love affair with the appellant and she had gone here and there with the appellant with her sweet-will. further, she being aged above 18 years, no case under section 366 of the indian penal code is made.10. in that view of the matter, this appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31-3-1998 is hereby set aside. since the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of the ball bonds.
Judgment:Hari Shankar Prasad, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31-3-1998 in Sessions Trial No. 120 of 1996 whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi held the appellant guilty under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced him to undergo RI for seven years.
2. Prosecution case is brief is that Jaleshwar Mahto, the informant gave a written report (Ext. 1) to the officer-in-charge of Hatia Police Station stating, inter alia therein that his daughter Uma Kumari everyday used to go to quarter No. B-32/3 for learning sewing and used to return back in time, but on 16-8-1995 when she did not return by 1.00 pm. then he inquired from one Sunita Kumari, friend of his daughter Uma Kumari and in course of inquiry he came to know that his daughter-Uma Kumari was returning with Sunita Kumari after learning sewing but in the way, Manoj Kumar Munda (appellant) came before her and talked to her for sometime. Thereafter, Uma Kumari asked Sunita Kumari to wait for sometime but she did not stay for long and came back her home. He doubted that his daughter has been kidnapped by the appellant Manoj Kumar Munda. On this piece of written information, a case bearing Hatia P.S. Case No. 160 of 1995 under Section 366, IPC dated 16-8-1995 was registered and I.O. after investigation submitted charge sheet in the case. Cognizance in the case was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the learned Court below recorded evidence of witness -- both oral and documentary and came to a finding and held the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.
3. Prosecution has examined altogether eight witnesses. PW-1 is Jaleshwar Mahto. He is informant as well as father of Uma Kumari, the victim girl. This, witness has stated that his daughter used to go to quarter No. 32-B/3 for learning sewing and used to return back from there in time, but on 16-8-1995 she did not return by 1.00 p.m. then he went to residence of friend of his daughter to inquire from her as to why his daughter has not returned back and in course of inquiry, he came to know that his daughter was also returning with her but in the way, the appellant Manoj Kumar Munda came there and he talked with his daughter for sometime and thereafter his daughter asked Sunita Kumari to stay but she did not stay for long and came back her home and thereafter on suspicion he has lodged this case.
4. PW-2 is Rajesh Kumar. He is brother of Uma Kumari and son of PW-1. He admits that place where appellant was talking to his sister, was not a lonely place, although he states that his sister told him that appellant had taken her here and there.
5. PW-3 is Brajesh Kumar. He has been tendered for cross-examination. PW-4 is Sunita Kumari. She has totally denied in her evidence that there is any friend of the name of Uma Kumari. She has been declared hostile. PW-5 is Shanti Devi. She is the mother of Uma Kumari and wife of the informant (PW-1). She had admitted that she learnt from her daughter that Manoj Kumar Munda, the appellant had taken her forcibly. PW-6 is the formal witness who has proved formal FIR (Ext.-2).
6. PW-7 is the doctor who examined Uma Kumari, the victim girl. According to this doctor, she did not find any positive sign of rape on her and she opined her age to be between 18 to 19 years.
7. PW-8 is Uma Kumari. She is the victim girl. She says that she came out of her house at 10.00 am for going to institute for learning sewing and at the end of the classes at 12.50 pm she was returning home with Sunita Kumari and when she reached near Sector-III, then Manoj Kumar Munda, the appellant surrounded her and gave information to her that her friend is calling her. When she went to Manoj Munda, then he threatened her and made her sit on motorcycle and took her to Tanki side where he talked to his friend and again took her to Jaggannathpur. When on her request to take her to her home, he did not take her to her house and took her to the residence of his Mama-Mami. She admits that she did not raise alarm when she was being carried by the appellant on motorcycle. She admits that letter to be in her handwriting, which is marked (Ext.-1), although she says that this letter was dictated to her at the residence of appellant's Mama-Mami. She admits that one letter was written in her blood and she says that Mami-Mami of appellant forced her to write letter and for that, they cut portion of her hand from where blood started oozing out.
8. On this piece of evidence, learned Judicial Commissioner held the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.
9. From perusal of evidence on record, it appears that Sunita Kumari has altogether denied knowing any friend of the name of Uma Kumari and she says that she does not know anything about Uma Kumari. It also appears from perusal of evidence of PW-2 that Chauraha (Junction) where Uma Kumari was talking to the appellant was not a lonely place and when she was threatened with dire consequences, she could have raised alarm and got the appellant caught or arrested, but she did not do like that. She further admits that while she was going on motorcycle with the appellant she did not raise alarm, but further admits from the letter (marked ext.) that she was having love affair with the appellant and she had gone here and there with the appellant with her sweet-will. Further, she being aged above 18 years, no case under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code is made.
10. In that view of the matter, this appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31-3-1998 is hereby set aside. Since the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of the ball bonds.