Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 199 OF 1997 Against the judgment and order dated 31.07.1997 passed by Sri Upendra Narayan Yadav, Additional District & Sessions Judge-X, Patna in S.Tr. No. 689/92. ************ Umesh Ranjan @ Umesh Vishwakarma, S/o Bishu Mistry @ Bishwa Nath Prasad, resident of Village- Korma, P.S.-Narhat, District-Nawadah. ……(Appellant) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Respondent) ************* For the Appellant : Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Adv. : Mr. Dilip Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mrs. Nirmala Kumari, APP. ************** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 365 IPC and sentenced to RI for seven years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of which a further RI for six months by the Additional District & Sessions Judge-X, Patna in S.Tr. No. 689/92 by a judgment dated 31.07.1997. 2. The case of the prosecution according to the informant, Rajiv Mohan is that on 29.08.1991 while he was sleeping in the house along with other inmates they suddenly heard the call bell at which the door was opened. Two unknown persons entered their house and they were offered water. Thereafter one of the accused started assaulting Mithilesh Kumar, P.W. 2 at which his father came out of room but the miscreants pointed a revolver on the temple of the informant’s mother and the 2 third accused persons caught his sister Guddy and fled away with her on an Ambassador Car. The mother is said to have identified one of the three accused as Umesh who often visited her house. 3. During trial the prosecution in all examined six witnesses out of whom P.W. 1, Aruna Sinha is the mother of the victim whereas P.W. 2, Mithilesh Kumar is the nephew of the victim. P.W. 3, Rajiv Mohan is the informant of the case whereas P.W. 4 is the sister of the victim and P.W. 5 Anupama Mohan is the victim herself. P.W. 6, Sidheshwari Prasad is the Investigating Officer. 4. The defence pleaded that in fact the appellant had been married with victim Anupama Mohan who was his legally wedded wife and exhibited certain documents to demonstrate this fact. Exhibit-A was the photograph of the alleged victim with the appellant whereas Ehibit-B was the application of registration of marriage and Exhibit B/1 and B/2 are the signatures of the victim, Auupama Mohan. Exhibit-C is the signature of the marriage officer. Exhibit-F is the signature of the appellant. Exhibit-G is the original marriage certificate. 5. D.W. 1, Om Prakash Tiwary an Advocate endorsed the fact that the appellant and victim Anupama Mohan had been married in the Court at Agra. 3 6. In this background this Court proceeds to scrutinize the evidence led by the prosecution since it would be in the interest of justice that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses be viewed in the light of facts placed by the defence there being a counter-version. 7. P.W. 5, victim Anupama Mohan stated that she had been forcibly taken in the car on the point of revolver. She further alleged that she had traveled from Patna to New Delhi where she remained one week in the house of one Inspector Gupta. She does not say that she had been kept under coercion in the house of Inspector Gupta. She also stated that she had been taken from Delhi to Agra by car and some photographs were taken of her and appellant together as also that she had been forced to sign the marriage certificate. She then returned to Delhi and stayed with Inspector Gupta’s house for further one month. This evidence of P.W. 5 does not inspire confidence since it is highly improbable that an adult would be kept under threat even while traveling to long distances without any opportunity to her to raise a voice of dissent or break free. Her evidence is enough to cast a doubt on the veracity of the Prosecution case. 8. Since the prosecution has not brought any evidence to show that the alleged victim was a minor 4 at that point in time, this Court assumes she was not a minor. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 31.07.1997 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge-X, Patna in S.Tr. No. 689/92 is, hereby, set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge and discharged of the liability of his bail bond. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 13th July, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-