- (1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellant Samsul Momin who was convicted for committing offence registered under Sections 366(A) and Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years each on both counts, by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka S.R in Sessions Case No. 414 of 1985 by Judgment dated 20.7.1991.
(2.) THE prosecution case in short is that on 23.1.1985, the informant Shambhu Thakur lodged an F.I. R. at about 9.00 P.M. alleging therein that his cousin sister Bimla Kumari, aged about 13 years, was kidnapped by Samsul Momin (appellant) in order to marry her. After investigation, the charge - sheet was submitted under Section 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. In order to establish the charges, altogether ten prosecution witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W. 1 is the prosecutrix Bimla Kumari herself. P.W. 2 Kuko Devi is the mother of the prosecutrix. P.W. 3 Md. Jahur is a formal witness on the point of recovery of the girl. P.W. 4 is the informant Shambhu Thakur. P.W. 5 Satahari Thakur is a tendered witness. P.W. -6 Panto Devi is sister -in -law (Bhabhi) of the prosecutrix. P.W. 7 Kalabati Devi is another sister -in -law (Bhabhi) of the prosecutrix. P.W. 8 Kamla Devi is the elder sister of the prosecutrix. P.W. 9 is the Kamta Pati Singh, the Investigating Officer and P.W. 10 is the Doctor who medically examined the prosecutrix.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there is inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. which creates doubt on the prosecution case. He submitted that the alleged occurrence took place. in the night of 21.1.1985 but the report was lodged on 23.1.1985 at 10:00 A.M. and this delay in lodging the F.I.R. has not been explained by the prosecution. It is further submitted that according to the Doctor, the girl was major and was aged about 17 -18 years and from the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecutrix, it appears that the prosecutrix had love affairs with the appellant and she, out of her own wiii, eloped with the appellant in order to marry him. It was further submitted that according to the prosecution, the appellant was threatening the family members of the prosecutrix that he would kidnap the victim Bimla Kumari to marry but the matter regarding such threat by the appellant was never reported to the Police.;