AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.1.1998 passed by the Sessions Judge, Deoghar In Sessions Trial No. 126 of 1996, whereby and whereunder, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants Mithan Mahto and Bhukhan Mahto for committing the offence under Sections 366, 366 -A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and has sentenced them to undergo R.I. for a period of 7 years for the said offence and they have been also directed to pay fine of Rs. 2000/ - each in default to undergo S.I. for a further period of one month each.
(2.) THE prosecution case in short is that the victim girl Kalawati Devi (PW 10) aged about 16 years developed intimacy with the appellants Mithan Mahto and Bhukhan Mahto, who were the residents of adjacent village and they used to visit the village of the informant frequently in connection with cultivation work. Further case of the prosecution is that on 31,12.1995 at about 7.00 p.m. the girl Kalawati Devi, i.e. the daughter of the informant went to fetch water from a tube -well, which was situated outside her house and since, thereafter, she did not return. The informant tried to search her out but failed. He also went to the house of those two appellants and then he came to know that actually these two appellants had kidnapped his daughter and took her away to Bengal. The informant came to know that his daughter was living with these two appellants in Bengal and then on 2.3.1996 he lodged the FIR thereafter during course of investigation the victim girl was recovered from the house of Mithan Mahto, i.e. appellant No. 1 in village Birajpur. After recovery, the victim girl was examined medically by the doctor on 4.3.1996 and according to the doctor the girl was found to be aged about 15 -16 -years. In order to establish the charges, altogether 14 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. PW 1 Bishwanath Rana is the brother of the victim girl. He has supported the statement made in the FIR. He also stated about the recovery of the girl from the house of the appellant Mithan Mahto. In paragraph 6 of his cross -examination he has admitted that the accused persons used to visit his house and they used to talk with his sister also. However, in paragraph 8 of his cross -examination he denied that his sister got married with the appellant Mithan Mahto in Basukinath Temple in presence of his father. PW 2 Kokil Rana is hearsay witness. However, in his cross -examination he has stated that he had seen the victim girl talking to the accused persons prior to the alleged occurrence. PW 3 Nilkanth Rana, PW 4 Anil Rana and PW 5 Sunil Rana are also the brothers of the victim girl Kalawati Devi. Their statements are also on the same line to that of PW 1 Biswanath Rana. However, all the aforesaid three witnesses have stated that the girl was not recovered in their presence. PW 6 Tilki Devi is the mother of the victim girl. She, in her examination -in -chief, has stated that when her daughter did not return then search was made in that course Ram Prasad and Bhuwaneshwar told her that they had seen her daughter talking to the twice and her first marriage was with one Tripurari Rana of Jasidih, which was performed about four years back and the second marriage was with Shiv -charan Mistry after about 15 days of the recovery from the house of the appellant Mithan Mahto. In para 8 of her cross -examination she has stated that she did not remember as to whether she had stated before the Magistrate that she got married with the appellant Mithan Mahto in Basukinath Temple in presence of her father. In fact she denied marriage with the appellant Mithan Mahto. PW 11 Jai Prakash Singh and PW 12 Khushru Sah are the formal witnesses and they are on the point of recovery of the girl from the house of the appellant Mithan Mahto. PW 13 is Dr. Nir -mala Singh, who had examined the victim girl medically. From her evidence it appears that he did not find any evidence of rape and she found the age of the girl to be 15 -16 years. PW 14 is the Investigating Officer.
(3.) ON behalf of the defence the statement of the victim girl given under Section 164, Cr PC was adduced in evidence and was marked as Ext. -A without any objection.;