D.P.SINGH, J. - (1.) THE sole appellant Raj Kumar Sao stands convicted for the offence under Sections 366(A) and 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for seven years and three years respectively by the 3 rd Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No. 194 of 1999.
(2.) BRIEF facts leading to his conviction are that the appellant was married with one Kaushalya Devi, the informant of this case, in the year 1996. However, immediately Kaushalya Devi was subjected to torture by the appellant and the appellant along with his family members started demanding Rs. 10,000/ - as well as one motorcycle from her. When the informant, Kaushalya Devi, and her parents could not satisfy the demands, she was thrown out of her matrimonial house and left at her parents house. It is further stated that in the meantime, the appellant started to stay in the house of the uncle of the informant Kaushalya Devi and having illicit relation with Geeta Kumari, her cousin sister. According to her statement, in the night of 29 th November 1998, the appellant came to the house of the uncle of the informant and eloped with Geeta Kumar to get her married. This matter was reported to Pelawal Police Station at Katkamsandi in writing on 9.12.1998. On the same day, one written report was submitted to Pelawal Police by the father of said Geeta Kumari that the appellant has taken away his minor daughter with intention to marry without his consent. In both the reports, name of one co -accused Nirmal Sao was mentioned to have participated in the alleged elopement. On the basis of written report, Kathamsandi Police Station Case No. 151 of 1998 was registered and the police started investigation to recover the said Geeta Kumari from the house of Raj Kumar Sao, the appellant. The police completed the investigation and finally submitted charge -sheet against the accused persons under Sections 363, 366(A), 494 and 498(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The statement of the recovered girl Geeta Kumari was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Judicial Magistrate on 21.12.1998. The case was committed for trial to the Court of Sessions and the accused were tried after framing charge under above mentioned sections. They have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be innocent. The learned trial court after recording the evidences, examining the accused person under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, found and held that the charge under Sections 363 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code were not made out However, he found that accused Nirmal Sao has not participated in any of the offence under Section 366A and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted him, but the appellant was held guilty for the offences mentioned above and sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for seven years and three years respectively of both the offences.
(3.) THE present appeal has been preferred on the grounds that the learned trial court has wrongly held the appellant for torture and dowry demands, when there is no such evidence available on record. It is also asserted that the appellant has not committed any offence under Section 366A as per the statement of the victim Geeta Kumari, who was a major and has gone with him out of her free will.;