Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.356 of 1998 Against the judgment and order of conviction dated 04. 08. 1998 and order of sentence dated 05. 08. 1998, passed by Shri Ramesh Kumar Rateria, Additional District & Sessions Judge, III, Patna, In Sessions Case No. 557 of 1994 1. Sanjeet Kumar, son of Sri Nawal Kishore Gupta, Resident of Paliganj, Police Station- Paliganj, District- Patna. 2. Bodh Narain Chauhan, son of Late Dasai Chauhan, Resident of Mohalla- Nonia Tola, Bikram, Police Station- Bikram, District- Patna. .... .... Appellants. Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent. WITH Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 412 of 1998 Against the judgment and order of conviction dated 04. 08. 1998 and order of sentence dated 05. 08. 1998, passed by Shri Ramesh Kumar Rateria, Additional District & Sessions Judge, III, Patna, In Sessions Case No. 557 of 1994 Dinesh Kumar, son of Vishwanath Ram, resident of Village- Fatehpur, P.S. Didarganj, District- Patna, at present residing at Mohalla- Saidpur Nahar, P.S. Kadamkuan, District-Patna. .... .... Appellant. Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent. (In CR. APP (SJ) No. 356 of 1998) For the Appellants : Mr. Naresh Kr. Malhotra, Senior Advocate. Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha, Advocate. Ms. Mariya Fatma, Advocate. For the Respondent State : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, A.P.P. (In CR. APP (SJ) No. 412 of 1998) For the Appellant. : Mr. V. B. P. Ambastha, Amicus Curiae. For the Respondent State : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, A.P.P. PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD Gopal Prasad, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. 2 2. Two appeals i.e. Cr. Appeal no. 356 of 1998 and Cr. Appeal No. 412 of 1998 have heard together and being disposed by the common judgment as the two appeals arising out of same judgment and order dated 04. 08. 1998, passed by Shri Ramesh Kumar Rateria, Additional District & Sessions Judge, III, Patna, in Sessions Case no. 557 of 1994, by he has been convicted the appellant, Sanjeet Kumar for offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced to under rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Further convicted for offence under Section 366 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The appellant, Bodh Narain Chauhan has been convicted for offence under Section 366 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven years. The appellant, Dinesh Kumar has been convicted for offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven years and further convicted for offence under Section 366 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven years. 3. The prosecution case as alleged that in the Fardbeyan that daughter of the informant went to school 3 along with sister of one Manoj, but she did not return then search was made at about 9 P.M., he learnt that Sanjeet Kumar has taken away the daughter of the informant after kidnapping and taken to Patna. Both the girls along with Sanjeet Kumar arrested from the hotel and Dinesh Kumar manage to escape. The victims were examined by the doctor and statement recorded and charge sheet submitted during trial. The victims were examined as P.W. 5 and 6 and supported the case of prosecution about kidnapping and rape on their person by accused persons. However, defence set up that evidence that there was consent. 4. Having regard to the fact that both the victims were minor aged about 14-15 years on the date of occurrence and hence defence of accused has got no meaning both either kidnapping under Section 366 I.P.C. and rape under Section 376 I.P.C. 5. Having satisfied with the evidence of the Prosecutrix, the trial court convicted the appellants and sentence as stated above. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant Sanjeet Kumar and learned Amicus Curiae for Dinesh Kumar during argument however, did not raise any question 4 regarding conviction. I also perused the record and evidence of the prosecutrix, there is nothing in evidence to disbelieve the prosecution about kidnapping and rape. The victim has supported the prosecution about kidnapping and rape. There is nothing in her evidence to disbelieve her. However, the age of victim found to be 14-15 years at the time of occurrence. 7. However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sanjeet Kumar contends that occurrence is of the year 1992 and twenty years has already been elapsed and appellant Sajeet Kumar and remained in jail for about six years from 28. 12. 1992 to 16. 12. 1998. Whereas learned counsel for the State submits that date of conviction recorded in the order sheet dated 02. 02. 1993 till his release by Hon’ble High Court on 16. 12. 1998. Bodh Narain Chauhan also remain in jail, though, convicted under Section 366 I.P.C. only. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstance, since the occurrence is of the year 1992 and twenty years has already been elapsed. Hence, end of justice shall meet by sentencing the appellants Sanjeet Kumar and Bodh Narain Chauhan for the period already undergone. 5 The appellant Dinesh Kumar is sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years. Hence both these appeals with this modification of sentence are dismissed. Patna High Court. The 8th September, 2011. NAFR/m.p. ( Gopal Prasad, J.)