The Patna High Court allowed appeals against conviction under Sections 366A and 120B IPC, acquitting appellants as the victim voluntarily left her parents to marry the accused, rendering the offence unsupportable by evidence.
Appellants acquitted and discharged from liabilities of bail bonds.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.273 of 2002
All of village Sundarpur, Police Station-Pirpainty, District-Bhagalpur.
The State of Bihar
.... .... Appellants Versus .... .... Respondent
with
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 321 of 2002
===========================================================
All resident of village-Sudarpur. P.S.Pirpainty, District-Bhagalpur.
.... .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar
.... .... Respondent
=========================================================== Appearance : (In CR. APP (SJ) No. 273 of 2002) For the Appellants : Sri S.C.Mishra, Advocate. For the Respondent : Sri S.N.Prasad, APP. (In CR. APP (SJ) No. 321 of 2002) For the Appellants : Sri S.C.Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent : Sri Sujit Kumar Singh, APP.
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE DHARNIDHAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 02-05-2014
These two appeals arise out of judgment of conviction dated 21.05.2002 passed by Fast Track Court, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No.333 of 1990, Trial No.153 of 2002 by which the four appellants along with deceased appellant Ratiya Devi of Cr.Appeal No.273 of 2002 were convicted of committing offences under Section 366A read with 120B IPC. After being heard on sentence under
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.273 of 2002 dt.02-05-2014
2
Section 235 Cr.P.C. each of the appellants were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years. The appellants have come up before this Court to challenge the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. One of the convicts, namely, Ratiya Devi had joined appellants Prakash Paswan and Sheikh Sah Alam @ Khalla in preferring Cr.Appeal No.273 of 2002, but during pendency of the appeal, she was reported dead which on enquiry, was found true and her appeal was ordered to abate by order of the Court passed on 28.04.2014 leaving that particular Cr.Appeal surviving only on behalf of appellants Prakash Paswan and Sheikh Sah Alam @ Khalla .
2 . P.W.3 Chinta Devi gave her fardbeyan at Pirpainti police station alleging that on 18.09.1989 appellant Sunil Paswan alias Surendra Paswan and Rajaram Paswan took away or enticed away her minor daughter from her house without her permission or knowledge with an intent to get married to her. The informant stated that she went on a search of her daughter and during that course, she learnt that appellant Sunil Paswan alias Surendra Paswan had taken away her daughter and was keeping her daughter Sunita Devi in his custody and subsequently, she also learnt that all the accused persons were in Godda Civil Courts where Sunita Devi had also been taken for getting married to Sunil Paswan alias Surendra Paswan. Accordingly, she came to Godda courts and found all the five
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.273 of 2002 dt.02-05-2014
3
accused, who were put on trial, with the lady. The informant was accompanied by her brother P.W.1 Mahendra Mandal and both P.Ws.1 and 3, i.e., Mahendra Mandal and the informant Chinta Devi attempted to convince Chinta Devi to come back to her mother’s house but the accused persons did not allow it to happen and ultimately the case was lodged.
3 . On investigation of the case, the same was found true and the five accused persons who were convicted by the impugned judgment were sent up for trial. During course of the trial, four witnesses were examined by the prosecution. P.W.1 was Mahendra Mandal, the brother of P.W.3 Chinta Devi who happened to be the mother of P.W.2 Sunita Devi who was allegedly taken or enticed away by appellant Sunil Paswan alias Surendra Paswan. P.W.4 Yogendra Mandal, who was the father of Sunita Devi, also supported the prosecution charges.
4 After having perused the evidence of the witnesses especially that of the informant and the victim lady Sunita Devi, what appears is that appellant Sunil Paswan alias Surendra Paswan developed an intimacy with Sunita Devi (P.W.2) while the family of the informant was residing in the house of one of the relatives of appellant Sunil Paswan alias Surendra Paswan as appears stated by P.W.3 in paragraph-9 of her evidence. P.W.3 has further stated that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.273 of 2002 dt.02-05-2014
4
the house was situated by the side of the house of appellant Sunil Paswan alias Surendra Paswan, who used to come inside her house and also used to indulge in some unwelcome activities, may be of the class of bodily relationship with her daughter and she had admitted to file a report also but the police refused to lodge it. In the same paragraph-3 P.W.3 admitted that Sunita Devi had run away from her house one month prior to the incident and had gone to Malda with appellant Sunil Paswan alias Surendra Paswan where she had lived as the wife of Sunil Paswan alias Surendra Paswan. So far as other aspects of the case is concerned, P.W.3 admitted in paragraph-8 that Sunita Devi the victim, was married to one Bindeshwari Mandal of village Sadanand Vaishav but the marriage did not move on well and refused to go to her husband’s house and probably that she did on account of her relationship with appellant Sunil Paswan alias Surendra Paswan. It appears from the evidence of P.W.3 mother of Sunita Devi specifically in paragraph-13 of her evidence that she was also directly or indirectly supporting the relationship of her daughter with the appellant, who not only used to have meetings with the appellant but was also desirous of marrying him. The simple reason or the obstruction as to why the appellant and the victim could not be married was that the appellant belonged to a cast different from that of the informant. This fact has been admitted by P.W.3 in paragraph-
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.273 of 2002 dt.02-05-2014
5
5 . P.Ws.1 and 4, i.e., brother of P.W.3, informant of the case and her husband were of course supporting the facts that Sunita Devi was taken away by appellant Sunil Paswan alias Surendra Paswan but as facts stand what appears is that the lady Sunita Devi had voluntarily left her mother’s house so as to going away with appellant Sunil Paswan alias Surendra Paswan to different places and further with the purpose of getting herself married to the appellant Sunil Paswan alias Surendra Paswan. As facts appear from the reasons of the above noted witnesses, this Court has serious doubt that an offence under Section 366A read with 120B IPC was really made out. In fact, there was neither any taking away or enticing away nor the lady had been taken away with an intent to subject her either to sexual intercourse or to get married to her, rather as appears from her own evidence, the lady had herself left her house to get married with appellant Sunil Paswan alias Surendra Paswan. It was not the solitary
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.273 of 2002 dt.02-05-2014
6
instance. P.W.3, the informant has also admitted in paragraph-9 of her evidence that one month prior to the incident the lady had eloped with appellant Sunil Paswan alias Surendra Paswan and had gone to Malda where the two were living as married couple.
6 . Under the above facts and circumstances no offence under Section 366A or 120B IPC is made out.
7. In the result, what this Court finds is that the conviction of the accused persons for the offences under Section 366A read with 120B IPC was quite unfounded and unsupportable by the evidence available on the record. In the result, the appeals are allowed, the four appellants are acquitted of the charges, they had been held guilty of. Appellants are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds.
(Dharnidhar Jha, J)
Patna High Court, Dated 2nd May, of 2014, Brajesh Kumar/NAFR
__ || U || T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction for offences under Sections 366A and 120B IPC is sustainable when the victim voluntarily left her home to marry the accused.
Whether the evidence of the victim who testified in her own defence negates the offence of taking away or enticing a minor wife.
Ratiya Devi and another
The State of Bihar
DHARNIDHAR JHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
