- (1.) The sole appellant Sidhant Mahto stands convicted for the offence under Section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti (Ranchi) in Sessions Trial No. 341 of 1993.
(2.) Briefly stated the facts leading to his conviction are that in the morning of 3rd April, 1991, two minor daughters of informant Dhanesh Prasad Jaiswal of village- Sonahatu, P.S.- Sonahatu, District- Ranchi, went (out) of their house to ease themselves. Further stated that when his girls did not return, an information was lodged with the police regarding this occurrence. The informant further tried to search his daughters and informed nearby villages regarding this occurrence. On 5-4-1991, the informant was informed by one Dilip Manjhi of village- Manjhidih that he has seen the appellant going with two girls towards village Rahe at about 4.00 p.m. Accordingly, the informant went to village Sataki where the villagers have kept the two girls and the appellant in the evening of 5th April, 1991. The matter was reported to Sonahatu Police on which Sonahatu Police Station Case No. 191 of 1991 was registered.
(3.) The police investigated the case and finally submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code. The case was committed to the Court of Session for trial where charge was framed against the appellant on 13-8-1998. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be falsely implicated in this case. He further pleaded that the girls have went themselves with him and he has no intention to take them out of their legal guardianship for any illegal purposes. The trial Court after examining the witnesses found and held him guilty under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, sentenced him to serve rigorous imprisonment for three years. 3A. The present appeal has been preferred on the grounds that the learned lower Court has committed mistake of fact and law. It is further asserted that non-examination of said Dilip Manjhi and the Investigating Officer has prejudiced the defence. According to this memo of appeal in absence of examination of the one victim and in the circumstances where they were recovered together, makes the entire story improbable. The memo of appeal further mentioned that the independent witnesses i.e. P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 having been declared hostile and non-examination of the I.O. makes the story of the prosecution doubtful. As such, the order of conviction is liable to be set aside.;