Cr. Appeal No. 81 of 2002
Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 19.02.2002, passed by learned 6th Additional Sessions
Judge, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No. 560/94.
Guddu Singh @ Dinesh Singh .....Appellant
----
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..........Respondent
For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shashank Shekhar, APP
------
PRESENT
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Merathia
--------
By Court. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 19.02.2002, passed by learned 6th
Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No. 560/94,
convicting the appellant under sections 363, 366A & 376 IPC and
sentencing him to undergo R.I. for seven years and also a fine of
Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment, six months S.I. under section
363 IPC, 10 years R.I. and fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default, S.I. for one
year under section 366A IPC and sentenced R.I for 10 years and also
a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default, S.I. for one year under section 376
IPC. All the sentences were to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that the mother of Sujata Mitra
@ Ruby lodged an FIR on 10.4.1994 that her daughter is missing from
9.4.1994
. She alleged that the appellant might have kidnapped her
and concealed her because he was in love with her and used to visit
her house in her absence. The informant had complained for this to
the mother of the appellant as well as other family members about
two months ago. The informant asked them that if they are ready,
she may get her daughter married with the appellant, upon which she
was told that they would restrain the appellant and asked the
informant to take her daughter Sujata. According to the informant,
the appellant used to send letters also to Sujata.
3. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted
that the doctor opined that the age of Sujata was 16 years. The
appellant should be given benefit of such determination as the
-2-
doctor’s assessment can be plus minus one year. The prosecution has
not brought on record any documentary evidence in proof of her age.
He further submitted that at the time of judgement in the year
February 2002, the age of the appellant was assessed as 24 years,
which means that appellant was also of tender age and may be
juvenile at the time of occurrence. He further submitted that
ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out.
4. On the other hand, counsel for the State supported the
impugned judgement and pointed out that the girl committed suicide
on 15.9.1994.
5. It appears even from the statement of Sujata recorded under
section 164 Cr.P.C. that she went near the house of the appellant
and then when the appellant called her, she went inside his house
and remained hidden when her mother came to search her. Then she
said that the appellant put vermilion on her head and both accepted
each other as husband and wife and indulged in physical relation and
then they went to Asansol. On 11.4.1994, when the appellant was
taking her to her mother, the family members of the appellant
dragged the appellant inside the house and pushed Sujata out of the
house. Then she returned to her mother. She also said that she
wanted to live with the appellant.
Sujata was examined by the doctor on 12.4.1994. The doctor
did not find any sign of rape but found sign of sexual intercourse
within a week. As per the doctor, the age of Sujata was about 16
years. It appears that the family members of Sujata were ready to
perform her marriage with the appellant but the appellant’s family
was not ready. Otherwise also, they were not of marriageable age. It
further appears that Sujata committed suicide and made a suicidal
note. Though not exhibited but a photo copy of alleged suicidal note
is marked as ‘X’, which was handed over by the mother of Sujata to
the police. From this, it appears that she was feeling guilty that she
has given bad name to her family but she said that she married the
appellant and the case against the appellant should be withdrawn
and the appellant be pardoned.
6. Be that as it may, I am inclined to give benefit of doubt to the
appellant as the prosecution has not proved it’s case beyond all
reasonable doubts.
-3-
7. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 19.02.2002, passed by learned 6th
Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 560/94, is
set aside and appellant is discharged from his bail bonds.
( R.K. Merathia, J)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated the 22nd September, 2011
Rakesh/NAFR/