Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.292 of 1997 =========================================================== Dinesh Dharker, Son of Kailu Dharkar, resident of village-Hridya Nagar, P.S. Banmankhi, District-Purnea. .... .... Appellant Versus State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Hare Krishna Kumar & Mr. Sidhendra Narayan Singh, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr. S.N.Prasad, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 28-08-2012 The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.09.1997, passed in Sessions Trial No.849 of 1994 by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea convicting the appellant under [STATUTE] and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. 2. The prosecution case is based upon the written report dated 09.10.1993 of P.W.1 Thakur Prasad Sah submitted to the officer-in-charge of Banmankhi police station. It has been stated by P.W.1 in the written report that on 08.10.1993 at about 7 p.m., his daughter Nilam Kumari left her house informing her mother that she was going to attend the call of nature. She did not return thereafter. The informant and his wife made a search for her. In the meantime, a co-villager Chhedi Rishideo told him that he had seen his daughter Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.292 of 1997 dt.28-08-2012 2 with two boys about half an hour ago going towards Dharkartola, Banmankhi. 3. On 09.10.1993, in the morning, he went to Dharkartola and there he was informed that Dinesh Dharkar and Pultha Sahani were absent from their house since last night. Later on, the informant learnt that a relation of the appellant used to reside at village Baghmara in K.Nagar police station. On receipt of such information, the informant along with his villagers, namely, Anandi Yadav, Bhola Mahto, Sudish Yadav and Ramkishun Yadav proceeded to village- Baghmara and there they met Buchai Dharkar, the uncle of the appellant. There the informant came to know that two boys and a girl went towards Garheya along with a lady. When the informant reached near Koshi Colony he found his daughter Nilam Kumari sitting along with the appellant, co-accused Pultha Sahni and the wife of Buchai Dharkar under a tree. Having seen the informant and others the aforesaid three persons fled away leaving the daughter of the informant alone there. The informant, thereafter, came to the police station along with his daughter. On query, the victim told that she had been kidnapped by the appellant and Pultha Sahni for the purposes of marriage. 4. On the basis of the said written report, the officer-in- charge of Banmankhi police station registered Banmankhi P.S.Case Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.292 of 1997 dt.28-08-2012 3 No.227 of 1993 dated 09.10.1993 under [STATUTE] against the appellant Dinesh Dharker, co-accused Pultha Sahni and the wife of Buchai Dharker and took up the investigation. 5. On completion of investigation, the police submitted chargesheet under [STATUTE] . The appellant along with Pultha Sahni and Kalia Devi(wife of Buchai Dharker), were charged for the offence punishable under [STATUTE] . The appellant and others did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. It is to be noted here that the appellant and co-accused Pultha Sahni were convicted on conclusion of trial under [STATUTE] and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each. However, the other accused, namely, Kalia Devi was acquitted of the charge. 6. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined, in all, six witnesses. Out of them P.W.2 Sudish Yadav and P.W.4 Bhola Prasad Mahto have expressed complete ignorance about the occurrence. They have been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.3 Ramkishun Yadav and P.W.5 Anandi Yadav have been tendered for cross-examination without being examined by the prosecution. P.W.1 Thakur Prasad Sah is the informant of the case and P.W.6 Nilam Kumari is the victim girl. Thus, the fate of the case Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.292 of 1997 dt.28-08-2012 4 depends on the deposition of the informant and his daughter. 7. P.W.1 Thakur Prasad Sah has reiterated the statement made by him in the written report on the basis of which FIR was instituted in his examination in chief. He has proved his signature on the written report which has been marked as Ext-1. He states that P.W.3 Ramkishun Yadav and P.W.4 Bhola Mahto were all along with him when he was searching for his missing daughter. They had also put their signature on the written report submitted to the police. He proved their signature which have been marked as Ext-2 and 2/1 respectively. He states that at the relevant time his daughter was aged about 15 years and the police had sent her for medical examination. In cross-examination he states that he did not know the name of the appellant and Pultha Sahni from before. However, P.W.3 Ram Kishun Yadav had disclosed him their name. He states that when he enquired from his daughter she told that she was taken away by the accused persons by use of force. He admits that she did not disclose as to whether or not she knew the appellant and Pultha Sahni from before. He further admits that when his daughter went out to defecate he was not present in the house. He was attending Satsang in the house of one Jagdeo, where apart from him, 6-7 other persons were also present. His wife came there and told him that their daughter was missing since last one hour. Thereafter, he went together with Jagdeo Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.292 of 1997 dt.28-08-2012 5 Yadav, Anandi Yadav, Asharfi Yadav, Baso Rishideo and others in search of his daughter. He admits in cross-examination that it

Applicable IPC Section: 359

Statute Text:
Section 359 of the Indian Penal Code. None. Kidnapping is of two kinds: kidnapping from India, and kidnapping from lawful guardianship.