RANCHI, India, Aug. 18 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on July 17:

1. Since both the appeal arises out of the common judgment of conviction dated 16th September, 1998 and order of sentence dated 23rd September, 1998, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chatra in Sessions Trial No.133 of 1997, as such they have been tagged together and taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common order.

Prayer:

2. Both the appeals have been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against judgment of conviction dated 16th September, 1998 and order of sentence dated 23rd September, 1998, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chatra in Sessions Trial No.133 of 1997, by which the appellant, namely, Basant Das has been convicted for the offence under Section 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and further appellant- Banshi Das has been convicted for the offence under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code and as such the appellant-Banshi Das has been sentenced of RI for five years for the offence under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code; and the appellant, Basant Das has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and in view of sentence passed under Section 376 IPC no separate sentence was awarded against the appellant, Basant Das, under Section 366A IPC.

Prosecution Case:

3. The prosecution case, as made out in the written report of the informant, is that victim (P.W.4) is the daughter of the informant Bajrang Prasad. In April, 1995, she was minor aged about 14 years. She was studying in a school at Huntergunj, Police Station Huntergunj, District Chatra.

4. According to the prosecution case, victim as usual, left her house situated at Huntergunj at about 7.00 A.M. in order to attend her morning class in the school. But she did not return home. It caused anxieties to the informant and other family members. She was searched here and there but she could not be traced out.

5. It is stated in the written report that about 8 to 10 days before the date of occurrence, an unknown lady came to the house of the accused Gopal Prasad Swarnkar and Nirmla Devi. The said Nirmla Devi called upon victim and got her identified with the unknown lady. Thereafter victim went to her school. Again, on the same day when she was returning from her school that unknown lady met her in the way. She wanted to talk something. However, Nirupa Kumari did not give any lift to her and went to her house. She uttered the entire occurrence to her mother. It is also stated that when victim went to her school after being identified with the unknown lady, the accused Gopal Prasad Swarnkar went to the house of informant and enquired from Jagrit Mahto, servant of the informant, as to when victim used to go to and return from her school. Just after 8 to 10 days of victim being identified with the unknown lady, at the instance of accused Nirmala Devi, she was kidnapped and thus on the basis of this fact and also the fact that the accused Gopal Prasad Swarnkar was enquiring about her, these two accused persons were prosecuted on suspicion after victim was kidnapped.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=%2B0CHco3SgG9uBlFsKF7soRPFicqAWilIeD2pGqaeqyJRfHHbNSQ36lNyik8Ypxql&caseno=Cr.A(DB)/306/1998&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010000201998&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.