RANCHI, India, Nov. 28 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Oct. 30:

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned A.P.P. representing the State.

2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 18.01.2005 and order of sentence dated 19.01.2005 passed in Sessions Trial No. 104 of 1997 arising out of Dhanbad (Dhansar) P.S. Case No. 724 of 1996 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2994 of 1996 by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Dhanbad, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 366/120B of the Indian Penal Code and they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under each section and also to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and in default thereof, to further undergo S.I. for two months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The criminal law has been put into motion on lodging an F.I.R being Dhanbad (Dhansar) P.S. Case No. 724 of 1996 against one Shyama Gosai and Ram Nath Rawani and their wives, who were neighbours of the informant, who were suspected for kidnapping the daughter of the informant Parmanand Choudhari.

On 27.09.1996 in the night, the wife of accused Shyama Gosai called the informant's daughter where after she went missing. The informant on suspicion that Shyama Gosai, Ram Nath Rawani and their wives were involved in kidnapping his daughter, lodged F.I.R as aforesaid. Later on the informant's daughter was recovered by the Police from Motihari along with Ranjit Kumar Das, Kaushalya Devi and Sanjay Paswan, who are appellants in the present appeal.

4. On the basis of the investigation, the Police submitted chargesheet on 08.11.1996 against all the appellants for the offence under Section 366/120B of the IPC. Thereafter cognizance has been taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.

5. Accordingly, the charge under Section 366/120(B) IPC was framed on 05.09.2000against the appellants who denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

6. To substantiate the allegations altogether eight prosecution witnesses have been examined:

I. P.W.1-Anjani Devi is the wife of the Informant and has supported the case of the prosecution.

II. P.W.2-Parmanand Choudhari is the informant of the case and has supported the case of the prosecution.

III. P.W.3-Hari Shanker Paswan has been declared hostile.

IV. P.W.4- Ashok Gupta has been declared hostile. V. P.W.5- Rama Nand Singh has been declared hostile.

VI. P.W.6- Dr. Rita Gupta, who has examined the victim girl has not found any external or internal injury upon the body of the victim.

VII. P.W.7-Bangal Charan Das is the Investigating Officer of the Case, who has proved the F.I.R (Ext. 3)

VIII. P.W.8- Raj Kishore Singh is the then Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, who has recorded the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. marked as Ext.5

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=FARLzxb7T713hJCp0t1iklj8yY3uDfF9r8G4vfA41Eei3%2F%2FnJUKiGgxHn%2FvoKlmf&caseno=Cr.A(SJ)/234/2005&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010251772005&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.