Case Facts:
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.313 of 2000 dt.13-08-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.313 of 2000 =========================================================== AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 21ST AUGUST, 2000 PASSED IN SESSIONS TRIAL NO. 499 OF 1997 BY THE 5TH ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI =========================================================== 1. NAWAL KISHORE YADAV SON OF BRAHMDEO YADAV 2. AMBIKA RAUT SON OF RAM BACHAN RAUT 3. BRAHMDEO YADAV SON OF LATE SURYA RAI 4. RAM BACHAN RAUT SON OF KHUBA RAUT ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE KALBARI MAJHARIA P.S. ADAPUR, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI .... .... APPELLANT/S VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... RESPONDENT/S =========================================================== APPEARANCE : FOR THE APPELLANT/S : MR. BIDHANESH MISHRA, ADVOCATE MS. PALLAVI MISHRA,ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE : MR. SUJIT KUMAR SINGH, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 13-08-2012 Sheema Ali Khan, J. Nobody appears on behalf of the appellant to press this appeal. Therefore, Mr. Bidhanesh Mishra, Advocate is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court in this appeal on behalf of the appellants. 2. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 21st August, 2000 passed in Sessions Trial No. 499 of 1997 by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari, whereby the Trial Court has found and held the appellants guilty for the offences punishable Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.313 of 2000 dt.13-08-2012 under [STATUTE] and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six month each. 3. The father of the victim girl, Sukha Prasad @ Sukha Prasad Yadav ( P.W.1) gave his fardbeyan on 26.08.1996 at 02.00 P.M., in which he has stated that his daughter namely, Bindu Kumari along with her brother, Pannalal had gone near the canal when the appellants came towards her and forcibly dragged her away. These facts were revealed to the father of the victim lady by Pannalal, who is the brother of the victim girl. It is said that Parma Prasad and Arjun Prasad Yadav had also witnessed the occurrence. The informant had stated that his daughter had married to Sukhdeo Rai about four years back and the occurrence took place when she came to visit her father. 4. Altogether seven witnesses have been examined in this case on behalf of the prosecution. P.W.1 Sukha Prasad @ Sukha Prasad Yadav is the informant of this case. He supports the prosecution case in his examination-in-chief and in the cross- examination, he states that Pannalal, his son, who was witness to the occurrence, was 25 years of age at the time when the occurrence took place. At Paragraph 4, he states that he had filed this case as Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.313 of 2000 dt.13-08-2012 per the information given to him by the villagers and his son. At paragraph 5, he states that the accused persons are respected and well known persons of the village. 5. P.W. 4 Pannalal has been declared hostile, as he does not support the occurrence in any manner. 6. P.W.2 Bindu Kumari, the victim girl in her examination-in-chief has supported the prosecution version and stated that she had been forcibly taken on a jeep by the four accused persons. In her cross-examination, she states that at the time of the occurrence she was not able to identify the persons who had abducted her. Although she supports the fact that she was taken away and kept in a house. She has also stated that she has given statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that she had signed on a compromise petition. In the statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure she had disclosed the names of the informant. 7. P.W.3 Arjun Prasad, who is named in the First Information Report as a witness to the occurrence, has been declared hostile as he does not support the occurrence. 8. P.W. 5 Subodh Chaudhary is the Investigating Officer of this case. His evidence is not of much use either to the prosecution or to the defence. It would appear that he had not Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.313 of 2000 dt.13-08-2012 recorded certain important facts in the case diary, such as whether he found tyre marks on the lane adjoining the river from where the victim was kidnapped, he has not recorded whether he found piles of grass lying near the place of occurrence which was supposedly gathered by the victim girl and others who were cutting grass at the place of occurrence. 9. The doctor has been examined as P.W.6. According to the statement of the doctor, the girl was 17-19 years of age. The doctor has not given any opinion regarding the factum of rape, although initially the case was also lodged under [STATUTE] . However, the girl has stated that she was not subjected to any physical abuse in her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Court. 10. P.W.7 Yogesh Narayan Singh is the Magistrate who had recorded the statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which has been marked as Exhibit-4. Exhibit-4 supports the case as made out in the First Information Report. 11. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, it would appear that the main witness i.e. the victim girl has resiled from her earlier statement alleging kidnapping by the accused persons by stating in her cross-examination that she was not able to identify the persons who had kidnapped her. It would also appear from her Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.313 of 2000 dt.13-08-2012 statement that there has been some sort of compromise in this case between the appellants and the victim girl and her father. 12. The fact remains that the brother and the witnesses

Applicable IPC Section: 366

Statute Text:
Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. Kidnapping or abducting a woman to compel her marriage or to cause her defilement etc. Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and whoever, by means of criminal intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of authority or any other method of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place with intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall also be punishable as aforesaid.