Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.768 of 2011 ====================================================== Astha Singh son of late Radha Singh, resident of village-Pawani, P.S.- Nasriganj, District- Rohtas .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2.Ramji Singh son of late Chandradeep Singh 3.Anil Singh 4.Ajay Singh 5.Vijay Singh All sons of late Ishwar Singh 6.Mantu Singh son of Sri Ramji Singh All resident of village-Pawani, P.S.-Nasriganj, District-Rohtas .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Abdul Wadood For the Respondent/s : Mr.Ashwini Kumar Sinha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH C.A.V. ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH) 7 28.2-2012 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under [STATUTE] against the judgment dated 31st May, 2011 passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions Trial No.446 of 2000 whereby respondent nos.2 to 6, who were put on trial for having committed an offence punishable under [STATUTE] have been acquitted of the charge. 2. The appellant lodged a complaint case on 11.6.1999 regarding the occurrence which is alleged to have taken Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.768 of 2011 (7) dt.28-02-2012 2 place on 24.5.1999 at 4.30 p.m. The said complaint was referred to the police under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for institution of first information report and investigation. Accordingly, Sasaram (T) P.S. Case No.330 of 1999 was instituted under [STATUTE] on 21.6.1999 and investigation was taken up. The appellant had stated in the complaint that on 24.5.1999 at about 4.00 p.m. the victim Ram Sakal Singh along with the witnesses had come to Sasaram Registry Office and executed four sale deeds in favour of sons and nephew of P.W.5 Ramdular Ram. The accused persons came on a jeep and took away the victim Ram Sakal Singh forcibly on the point of pistol. They promised that the victim would be safely dropped at his place. The witnesses present at the place of occurrence objected the abduction of the victim but they were threatened on the point of pistol. The complainant along with the witnesses thereafter came back to their village home at about 8 p.m. on 24.5.1999 itself. They searched for the victim but could not trace him. When the informant failed to locate the whereabouts of the victim ultimately on 27.5.1999 he went to the police station and reported the incident. The SHO of Nasriganj Police Station took a written report on a plain paper from the informant and assured to recover the victim within 2-3 days. The police did not Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.768 of 2011 (7) dt.28-02-2012 3 take any action, no first information report was registered and only Station Diary Entry being Sanha No.592 of 1999 was registered. Thus, the appellant finding no way out lodged a complaint in the court on 11.6.1999 which, as stated hereinabove, was sent to the police under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, accordingly, first information report was instituted. The police investigated the case and after submission of charge sheet cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. In course of trial altogether seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution in order to prove the charge. 3. P.W.4 Astha Singh is the informant of the case. P.W.3 Munna Singh is son of the informant. P.W.1 Jantu Singh and P.W.2 Sidheshwar Ram @ Sidhdhi Ram are their co- villagers. P.W.5 Ramdular Ram is a village Chaukidar. P.W.6 Md Israil,a Sub. Inspector of Police, is the investigating officer of the case who has submitted charge sheet upon completion of the investigation. P.W.7 Gopalji Singh is a formal witness, who has proved the complaint petition dated 11.6.1999 which was marked as Ext.3. The signature of the informant on the complaint petition no.494 of 1999 has been marked as Ext.1, the formal first information report has been marked as Ext.2 and signature on the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.768 of 2011 (7) dt.28-02-2012 4 Station Diary Entry has been marked as Ext.4. The defence took a plea of false implication. Several documents were also proved on behalf of the defence which were marked as Ext.’A’ to Ext.’F’ in course of trial. 4. The informant admitted in cross-examination that respondent no.2 Ramji Singh is his cousin and respondent nos. 3 to 5 are his nephew. He admitted that his father and father of respondent no.2 Ramji Singh namely, Chandradeep Singh were brothers. He further admitted that the victim Ramsakal Singh was uncle of respondent no.2 Ramji Singh. Thus, it is apparent that father of the informant late Radha Singh, father of respondent no.2 late Chandradeep Singh and the victim Ramsakal Singh were brothers. The trial court has discussed the evidence of each of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution in detail. It has come in cross-examination of the witnesses that adjacent to the place of occurrence which is Registry Office, Sasaram, office of the Sub. Divisional Magistrate and Deputy Superintendent of Police are located. Several police personnel were present on duty in and around the place of occurrence. 5. It has been contended that at the time of kidnapping of the victim Ramsakal Singh, the witnesses raised alarm but conspicuously none came in rescue. Admittedly, the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.768 of 2011 (7) dt.28-02-2012 5 matter regarding kidnapping of the victim was not reported on 24.5.1999, 25.5.1999 and 26.5.1999. A report in this regard was for the first time given to the police on 27.5.1999 pursuant to which only a Sanha Entry was made. The informant (P.W.4) in cross-examina

Applicable IPC Section: 372

Statute Text:
Section 372 of the Indian Penal Code. Selling or letting to hire a minor for purposes of prostitution, etc. Whoever sells, lets to hire, or otherwise disposes of any person under the age of eighteen years with intent that such person shall at any age be employed or used for the purpose of prostitution or illicit intercourse with any person or for any unlawful and immoral purpose, or knowing it to be likely that such person will at any age be employed or used for any such purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.