B.B. Mangalmurti, J. - (1.) By Court This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12th June, 2003 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court III, Giridih in Sessions Trial No.310 of 1988 convicting both the appellants Khalil Mian and Imam Mian @ Pano Ansari under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code whereas accused Yusuf Mian and Chhoto Mian were not found guilty under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code and they were acquitted. The convicts-appellants were sentenced five years rigorous imprisonment under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code with fine of Rs.2000/- which will be allowed to be given to the victim girl Gulzar Khatoon as compensation and in default further rigorous imprisonment for one year.
(2.) The prosecution story, in short, is that on 27.08.1987 Md. Anwar Ahmad gave his fardbeyan to Nimiaghat Police Station that on 26.08.1987 co-villager Md. Ismail Mian informed him that accused Khalil Mian, Yusuf Mian, Imam Ansari @ Pano and Chhoto Mian instigated accused Rozan Mian and Chhotan Mian to kidnap Gulzar Khatoon because she was going to Gomoh to inform her father. The accused persons caught hold of her while the victim girl reached at Kodadih Tand at about 10 O' clock. The informant came to know about the incident while he was at his Gomoh railway quarter. He claimed that due to enmity of land dispute between accused Yusuf Mian and informant, they might have kidnapped his sister Gulzar Khatoon aged about 13 years in order to commit her murder.
(3.) Thereafter, Nimiaghat P.S. Case No.62 of 1987 under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code being G.R. Case No.1203 of 1987 was registered. During investigation, statement of the victim girl Gulzar Khatoon was also recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted by the Police and after commitment of the case and after framing of the charge trial against the accused persons started. During course of trial, altogether four prosecution witnesses were examined but from the defence side, no oral evidence was examined but they have brought on record certified copies of the judgments which have been marked as Ext. A, B & C to prove previous enmity between the parties.;