- (1.) THE appellants have preferred these appeals against the judgment and order dated 11.12.2003 passed by Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court, IXth, Ranchi whereby and whereunder they have been convicted under Section 366 -A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years each. Since both the appeals arise out of same judgment have been taken up together for disposal.
(2.) FACTUAL matrix leading to these appeals are that in the morning of 20.1.2001 the sister of the informant PW 4 Sanjay Banwar has left the house for Muri Bazar and did not return till the evening. The informant along with others started searching his sister Deepshika @ Soni then he came to know that she was seen at Muri station along with appellants Chaiti Devi and her husband Kuldep Sharma. The informant along with other approached the appellants and after some interrogation came to know from these two appellants that they had carried last day Soni to Ranchi where she was confined in the house of their acquaintance. The Silli police recorded the statement of the informant and registered Silli P.S. Case No. 6 of 2001 under Section 366 -A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The girl was recovered from Ranchi near the house of the appellants Chanchala Devi and Tinkauri Sarkar same day. The police finally submitted charge -sheet against four persons under Section 366 -A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the appellants were committed for trial by the Court of Sessions where they were charged on 27.2.2002 for the offences mentioned above. The appellants pleaded not guilty. However, the learned trial Court after examining the witnesses found and held all of them guilty under Section 366 -A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to serve RI for 10 years each.
(3.) THE present appeals have been preferred mainly on the grounds that their conviction under Section 366 -A/34 of the Indian Penal Code is not maintainable. It is also asserted that the evidence available on record did not justify the conviction of all the appellants. According to the learned counsel for the appellants Chanchala Devi and Tinkarui Sarkar they were neither named in the FIR nor PW 6 was recovered from their, physical possession. It is also submitted that when the police recovered the girl from the road near the house, they could not be held responsible and the essential ingredients of under Section 366 - A/34 of the Indian Penal Code was missing. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants further submitted that there is no iota of evidence that the girl was at any time threatened and seduced for illicit intercourse during this period. Therefore, their conviction under Section 366 -A/34 of the Indian Penal Code deserves to be set aside. It is also asserted that the defence witnesses were not considered properly resulting in prejudice to the appellants. The appellants Chanchala Devi and Tinkauri Sarkar have preferred appeals separately along with Chaiti Devi and Kuldep Sharma. However, at the time of hearing of these appeals the learned counsel Mrs. Sandhaya Sahay for Chanchala Devi and Tinkauri Sarkar informed that she has given no objection certificate to the parvikar of the appellants. Learned counsels Mr. Nilesh Kumar and Vijyant Verma holding the brief of Chaiti Devi and Kuldep Sharma in both the appeals separately argued on merit in the appeals and assisted the Court for final disposal of both the appeals.;