Cr. Appeal No. 231 of 2000 (R)
---
Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
22.06.2000 passed by the Learned 2nd Assistant Sessions Judge,
Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 1995 / 211 of 1995.
1. Dwarika Mahto
2. Prasanna Mahto
3. Mahitosh Mahto Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
2. Khagen Mahto Respondents
---
For the Appellants: Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Awani Kant Prasad, APP
---
PRESENT
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Merathia
---
Judgment
--
Dated 23rd September 2011
By Court: This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 22.06.2000 passed by the learned 2nd
Assistant Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No. 18 of
1995 / 211 of 1995 convicting the appellants under sections
366(A)/34 and 368/34 IPC and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for
nine years under section 366(A)/34 IPC and R.I. for seven years under
section 368/34 IPC. However, all the sentences were directed to run
concurrently.
2. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the appellants,
submitted that the main accused in this case is Umesh Mahto who
has been released after serving out the sentence and the appellants
were involved in this case only because the appellant no. 1-Dwarika
Mahto happens to be the father of Umesh Mahto and appellant nos. 2
and 3 Prasanna Mahto and Mahitosh Mahto happens to be relatives of
Umesh Mahto and they are alleged to have assisted Umesh Mahto in
committing the crime by confining the victim-Chhaya Kumari Mahto,
a minor girl, and coercing her to marry Umesh Mahto and not
producing Umesh Mahto and victim-Chhaya Kumari Mahto before the
panchayati. He further submitted that in any event, the appellant no.
1-Dwarika Mahto may be about 66 years of age by now and appellant
no. 2-Prasanna Mahto may be about 71 years of age by now and the
appellants have suffered this prosecution since 1993. He further
submitted that the ingredients of sections 366(A) and 368 IPC are not
made out, so far as these appellants are concerned.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supported the
impugned judgment.
2. After hearing the parties and going through the records
carefully, it appears that the main allegations were against the co-
convict Umesh Mahto and there is no allegation against these
appellants for committing crime under sections 366(A) and 368 IPC,
rather the allegation against them is that they assisted the main
accused. The only allegation against the appellants is that after
alleged abduction of the victim by co-convict Umesh Mahto, they
provided money and food to Umesh Mahto and victim Chhaya Kumari
Mahto and they did not disclose about their whereabouts and did not
produce them before the Panchayati.
6. In these circumstances, in my opinion, the appellants deserve
the benefit of doubt as the prosecution has not fully proved it’s case
beyond all reasonable doubts.
7. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction
and order of sentence, as passed by the trial court against the
appellants under sections 366(A)/34 and 368/34 IPC, is hereby set
aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges. The appellants are
on bail, they are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.
(R.K. Merathia, J)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated 23rd September 2011
Ranjeet/