1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 352 of 2006 (Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 13.4.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Rohtas at Sasaram, in Sessions Trial No. 202 of 2004) ======================================== Kail Thakur @ Satyendra Thakur @ Satyendra Thakur, son of Pachu Thakur, resident of village – Ksigauba Mahabir Ashthan, P.S. Rohtas, Distt. Rohtas. .... .... Appellant Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent ======================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Vikram Deo Singh, Adv. Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Singh. For the Respondent :Mr. Aslam Ansari, A.P.P. ======================================== P R E S E N T HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The Appellant has been convicted under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years by a Judgment dated 13.4.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions Trial No. 202 of 2004. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.1.2004, the daughter of the Informant was taken away by Appellant Chalaua Oraon and thereafter left at her door with injury on her private parts. When the Informant along with villagers caught hold of Chalaua Oraon and were going to Police Station, the Appellant is said to have got him released and told her not to institute any case and gave her Rs. 1,000/- for her treatment. 2 3. During trial, the prosecution examined nine witnesses out of whom PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7 have been declared hostile. PW-7 is the Doctor who examined the victim. During trial, PW-4 is the sole witness on the factum of occurrence and she has merely stated in her evidence that the villagers had caught hold of accused Chalaua Oraon where the Appellant had come. She further narrated that everyone had scolded Chalaua whereafter the Appellant had told her to get medical assistance. She further stated that Chalaua Oraon was released. It appears to be a general statement and not that the accused person was in custody of the Appellant and released/got released by him. In the same context, PW-4 has stated that the Appellant had given money for medical assistance and that she had not instituted the case against the Appellant. She further stated that it was the Police who had named the Appellant and that it was on account of the Mukhiya’s machinations that the case was not instituted. 4. On going through the evidence of the sole witness, it is difficult to sustain the conviction of the Appellant under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. In the result, the Appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant in Sessions Trial No. 202 of 2004 by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II Rohtas at Sasaram, is hereby set aside. 6. The Appellant is discharged from the liability of his bail bond. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated, 24th June,2011 NAFR/S.ALI