Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) NO. 273 OF 1996 =========================================================== AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 11TH OCTOBER, 1996 AND THE ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 14TH OCTOBER, 1996 PASSED BY SHRI RAJENDRA PRASAD CHOUDHARY, SESSIONS JUDGE, MADHEPURA IN SESSIONS TRIAL NO. 12 OF 1992 ARISING OUT OF UDAKISHUNGANJ POLICE STATION CASE NO. 60 OF 1989 =========================================================== 1. LAL BAHADUR DAS, SON OF LATE SURYU DAS 2. RAJENDRA DAS, SON OF LATE CHHEDI DAS 3. JAGDISH DAS, SON OF LATE KANGALI DAS 4. SUMRIT DAS, SON OF LATE NITTAN DAS 5. GHURAN DAS, SON OF LATE MITHU DAS 6. MANTU DAS, SON OF LATE NITTAN DAS ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PANCHAWATI (DOHALBARI), POLICE STATION UDAKISHUNGANJ, DISTRICT MADHEPURA .... .... APPELLANTS VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... RESPONDENT =========================================================== APPEARANCE: FOR THE APPELLANTS : MR. UJJWAL KUMAR SINHA, ADV. MR. ARUN KUMAR SINGH NO. 3, ADV. FOR THE S T A T E : MR. SUJIT KUMAR SINGH, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN CAV JUDGMENT Date: 10 -12-2012 Sheema Ali Khan, J. Ghuran Das, appellant no. 5 has died during the pendency of this appeal sometime in the year 1998 as per the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants. This fact may be ascertained by the Trial Court from the Superintendent of Police, Madhepura. If the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that appellant no. 5, namely, Ghuran Das, is dead, then the appeal against him shall abate, if not found dead, he shall be covered by the findings IN this judgment. 2. The appellants have been found guilty under Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.273 of 1996 dt.09-11-2012 2 / 7 2 [STATUTE] for kidnapping Lukhri Devi, daughter of Kokai Sah in the year 1996 and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- . 3. The case, as per the First Information Report, is that on 31.03.1989, Kokai Sah had left his house to get the sugarcane weighed, his wife had gone to the fields to mind the crops. When Kokai Sah returned at about 1 AM, he learnt from his wife that his daughter was missing. After about 12-13 days, he came to know that Lal Bahadur Das (appellant no. 1) and Rajendra Das had come to his house and kidnapped his daughter. According to the informant, he went to the house of Lal Bahadur Das, however the appellants came out with lathies and refused to allow the girl to return with him. Thereafter, he has lodged this First Information Report. 4. The prosecution has examined seven witnesses out of which PW 7 Ram Chanchal Sharma is a formal witness whereas PW 6, Dr. Saroj Singh has examined the victim girl. 5. This Court will begin with the evidence of the victim girl Lukhri Devi, PW 4. According to PW 4, Rajendra Das and Lal Bahadur Das came to her house and asked her to accompany them. She went to the house of Lal Bahadur Das where she was forcibly retained by the appellants. According to her, she was first taken to Behariganj and then to Banmankhi. From Banmankhi, she took a train and went to Calcutta, where Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.273 of 1996 dt.09-11-2012 3 / 7 3 she was forcibly married to Lal Bahadur Das. She returned after 13 days and began to live in the house of Lal Bahadur Das. In her examination-in-chief, she has stated that she was minor on the date the occurrence took place. Her statement in the cross- examination is contrary to the case made out by the informant in the First Information Report. She has specifically stated that she is giving her evidence as per the direction of her father. She has stated in paragraph 4 of her deposition that “ th vuqlkj vkt Wa ” She further states that the Daroga had taken her to give her evidence at Madhepura, where she gave her evidence as directed by the informant. “tSl¢- tSls bUg¨us dgk Fkk oSl ¢gh eSus n.Mkf|dkjh ds le{k C;ku fn;k ” According to her case, her eldest child is 7 years and her youngest child is 3 years old. She has stated that she had her first child after about 1½ years of her marriage. She admits that there was a Panchayat held in the village in which she held the hand of Lal Bahadur Das and dragged him out of the Panchayat saying that they love with each other, and she wants to live with him. Subsequently, it appears she has given evidence after being pressurized by her father. 6. On the basis of the evidence of PW 4 Lukhri Devi, Counsel for the appellants submits that it would appear that she was married about 8½ years before she gave her evidence, which would be around august, 1995. According to her, she was major when she got married and as such, she was also major on Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.273 of 1996 dt.09-11-2012 4 / 7 4 the date on which the alleged kidnapping took place. Besides which, it would appear that she had willingly left her house and wanted to live with Lal Bahadur Das and it was only on the intervention of her father that she was recovered by the Police and that is why the case has been instituted after 13 days of the occurrence. It is further submitted that her evidence would reveal that a panchayat was held between 31.03.1989 and 13.04.1989 i.e. before the lodging of the First Information Report. At this juncture, it may be mentioned that two witnesses to the Panchayat, namely, Bhola Sharma and Baleshwar Mishra have been examined as DWs 1 and 2 respectively. The document has been proved by the aforesaid witnesses and marked as Exhibits A and B, which is the photocopy of the original proceeding to the Panchayat. No objection has been raised by the prosecution with respect to this document. It would thus appear that Lukhri Devi and Lal Bahadur Das were married, and because they came from different castes, an objection was raised by the father of Lukhri Devi who instituted the First Information Repor

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.