Kailash Prasad Deo, J. - (1.) The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 03.09.2004, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Gumla, in Sessions Trial No. 16 of 2000, whereby the sole appellant has been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 366 (A) and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (i) (xii) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant has been awarded rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs. 1000/- each separately for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 366 (A) and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and has further been awarded rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs. 1000/- for offence committed and punishable under Section 3 (i) (xii) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Attrocities Act), 1989. However, in case of default in payment of fine, the appellant shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. All the sentences are directed to run consecutively.
(2.) The prosecution case is based upon the complaint petition filed by Tarsisiya Khalkho (P.W. 2) before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla, which was registered as C 76 / 1999 for an occurrence committed on 13.04.1999. The complainant/informant has stated that her daughter Jyoti Khalkho, aged about 13 years went to telephone booth to talk with her elder daughter, who is residing at Delhi. The complainant has alleged that at around 11.00 A.M., the victim Jyoti Khalkho connected the phone and handed over the same to the complainant. It was stated that Jyoti Khalkho was talking with the appellant Rozan Mian @ Rojna Mian outside the telephone booth. The informant has seen, both victim and the appellant were talking in a pleasant mood. The informant came out of the telephone booth then, Rozan Mian told her that he is taking Jyoti Khalkho for stroll at Gumla market. Since Rozan Mian was known to the informant and her family members, she has allowed the appellant, without any suspicion. The informant was waiting for her daughter till 3.00 P.M. but her daughter did not return and thereafter informant came to her house, informed her husband, who is suffering from paralysis and inquired whether their daughter has returned or not, upon which her husband disclosed that she has not returned. Thereafter, informant was waiting for return of her daughter but on the next date i.e. on Wednesday, at around 9.00 A.M., witness no. 3, namely Kishor Bek informed her that Rozan Mian along with 3-4 unknown persons took the daughter of informant in a jeep towards Tangar Toli. The informant has tried her best to search her daughter but could not get any information. The informant has claimed that Rozan Mian along with 3-4 persons have enticed her minor daughter and have taken her for illicit sexual intercourse.
(3.) On the basis of complaint petition, which was referred to the local police station, Gumla under Section 156 (iii) of the Cr.P.C., police has registered Gumla P.S. Case No. 84 of 1999 dated 14.05.1999, under Section 366 (A) of the Indian Penal Code and subsequently, vide order dated 12.11.1999 Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code has also been added.;