PATNA, India, Oct. 24 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on Sept. 24:
The present criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 413 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 against the judgment of acquittal dated 08.05.2025 passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bhagalpur in S.T. Case No. 636 of 2012, arising out of Kahalgaon (Rasalpur) P.S. Case No. 366 of 2007, whereby Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have been acquitted by the learned trial court from the charge of Sections 366A and 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution case, according to the fardbeyan of the informant, is that on 28.09.2007 at about 8:30 AM when she was going to college at Sabour, on the way at Village Bholshar, Kamdev Pandit (respondent No. 2) and Hareram Pandit (respondent No. 4) met her and suggested her to marry with Bambam @ Suman Pandit (respondent No. 3) as he works in Delhi and that after marriage they will stay in Delhi and they(respondent Nos. 2 and 4) will bear the expenses. They further informed the informant that Bambam @ Suman Pandit has come to Bhagalpur and he is at Railway Station. The informant revealed that she was in love affair with Bambam @ Suman Kumar. Both Kamdev Pandit and Hareram Pandit took her to Railway Station on Tempo and on the way Kamdev Pandit purchased cloth for her and also gave Rs 500/- to her. Bambam @ Suman was at Railway Station. Kamdev Pandit purchased tickets for them and Bambam @ Suman took her to Delhi assuring her for marriage. On 29.09.2007, informant reached Delhi and went at Azad Nagar with Bambam @ Suman, lived with Bambam @ Suman for two nights during which Bambam @ Suman made physical relation with her and on protest by the informant, he stated that he will marry her. Informant came to know on mobile phone that her father has given Sanha in police station regarding her missing and police is inquiring from Hareram Pandit. Hareram Pandit informed Bambam on mobile phone that police is searching them. Bambam told her that their parents became ready for their marriage and on believing him, she returned to Bhagalpur on 02.10.2007. Kamdev Pandit and Hareram Pandit took her to Prasadi Mandal at Ghogha on tempo from Bhagalpur Railway Station saying that their marriage will be taken place there, and on that night she stayed there. On 03.10.2007, the informant said Kamdev Pandit to call her parents, then the accused persons said that no marriage will be taken place now because her father has filed the case. Bambam @ Suman Pandit ran away from there and somehow the informant informed her parents on phone.
3. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, Kahalgaon (Rasalpur) P.S. Case No. 366 of 2007 was instituted under Sections 366A and 376/34 of the I.P.C. and investigation was taken up by the police. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and, accordingly, cognizance was taken. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. During the trial, the prosecution examined altogether six witnesses i.e. PW1 Pravakar Pandit, PW2 Shila Devi, PW3 Bindeshri Mandal, PW4 Dimpal Kumari, PW5 Vinod Kumar and PW6 Dr. Pranav Dwivedi. The prosecution has also produced certain documents as Exhibits i.e. Ext. 1- signature of informant's father on fardbeyan, Ext. 1/1- signature of informant on fardbeyan, Ext.2- signature of informant on her statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC, Ext.3- formal FIR, Ext. 4- charge-sheet No. 485/07 dated 31.12.2007, Ext. 4/1- chargesheet No. 255/08 dated 31.07.2008, Ext. 5- Matriculation admit card of victim/informant, Ext. 5/1- Matriculation certificate of informant/victim, Ext. P-6/PW-5- entire fardbeyan, Ext. P6/1/PW-5- forwarding upon fardbeyan, Ext. P-6/2/PW-5- endorsement of registration of case upon fardbeyan, Ext. P7/PW-5- signature of SHO Ajay Kumar Mishra on formal FIR and Ext. P-8/PW-6- medical report. The defence has also examined three witnesses, viz., DW1 Ghanshyam Mandal, DW2 Prasadi Mandal and DW3 Balram Pandit. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and after conclusion of trial, learned trial court has acquitted the accused persons.
5. The learned trial court on the basis of materials available on record, and the evidence produced before the court, acquitted the accused persons observing that the prosecution has miserably failed to avail opportunity and has not produced any substantive piece of evidence to prove its case beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts against the accused persons. The learned trial court further came to the conclusion that on the basis of the prosecution evidence available on record, the accused persons cannot be convicted and no offence against them is made out and that the charges levelled against them has not been proved beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts.
The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NSM5MjgjMjAyNSMxI04=-Ez--am1--HThNyVrI=
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
