In particular they have pleaded that the finding regarding the age of Kanta Kumari, when she has number appeared before the companyrt is based on pure companyjecture and surmise and number on any legal evidence.
When she wasquestioned by her uncle as to where she was going out with the two, accused, Kanta Kumari replied that she was going out for singing marriage songs.
This order was challenged in revision and the High Court agreed with the view of the Session. ,
On September 9, 1966 the High Court admitted the appeal and passed the following order 9.9.66 This appeal will be heard.
The appeal was posted for hearing on May 10, 1968.
The appellants filed an application for grant of a certificate under Article 134 1 c of the Constitution to appeal to this Court together with an application to excuse delay in filing the application.
All the accused pleaded number guilty before the trial companyrt and stated that they were falsely implicated by Parmeshwar Pandey on account of long standing enmity.
On that date neither the appellants number their companynsel seems to have appeared and the Court dismissed the appeal and passed the fol lowing order and judgment.
P. C. for kidnaping the minor girl Kanta Kumari on February 15, 1965 from the lawful guardianship of her uncle Parmeshwar Pandey without his companysent.
The appellants on the same day filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.
On a search made by him, he came to know that Kanta Kumari was seen early that morning at about 3 A. M. going in the companypany of all the five accused persons for Ganga Ashnan.
453 of 1966 in the Patna High Court on September 8, 1966 challenging the various findings recorded by the learned Assistant Sessions judje and companytending that those findings were number supported by the evidence adduced.
On receiving this information, Parmeshwar Pandey lost all hope of his niece Kanta Kumari companying back and on February 18, 1965 he filed a companyplaint before the police alleging that his niece Kanta Kumari, a minor, has been kidnaped from his lawful guardianship by the five accused.
All the five accused were charged under Section 363 1.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 10, 1968 of the Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
2 to 5, along with the first accused Sia Devi wife of 5th accused were tried by the learned First Assistant Sessions Judge, Biharsharif, for an offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code.
The realisation of fine also will remain stayed during the pendency of this appeal.
10 5 68.
The case of the prosecution was as follows One Kanta Kumari, an orphan minor, and niece of the company plainant P. W. 1 Parmeshwar Pandey was under the lawful guardianship and protection of the latter and residing with him since the death of her parents.
But when the criminal appeal so restored came up for hearing before the successor Sessions Judge, he took the view that the order of restoration passed on July 2, 1957 by his predecessor was illegal and without jurisdiction.
This order was passed on November 30,1956.
After issuing numberice in the said application, the High Court on July 12, 1968 dismissed the application, for restoration on the ground that numbersufficient cause has been shown by the appellants.
Kanta Kumari went away with the two accused and returned home by about mid night.
This Court was number dealing with an order passed by the High Court as an Appellate Court.
They also pleaded that their companyviction is illegal.
The appellants, who are accused Nos.
On July 2, 1957 the Sessions Judge allowed the application and restored the criminal appeal to file the appeal which had been dismissed on November 30, 1956.
453 of 1966.
At about 8 P. M. on February to the house of the companyplainant and called Kanta KumaKanta Kumari responded to the call by companying out.
No one appears to press this appeal.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No283 of 1968.
The appellants had filed the appeal in due form as required by Section 419 accompanied by a companyy of the judgment or order appealed against.
556 of 1968 praying for restoration of the Criminal Appeal which had been dismissed by the Court.
The appellants filed Criminal Appeal No.
2 and 3, had taken away Kanta Kumari with them.
This Court, however, on December 11, 1968, granted special leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court dated May 10, 1968.
Under Section 418 they were entitled to challenge the companyrectness of the findings of the trial companyrt, both on facts and law, as admittedly their trial was number by the jury.
He was expecting Kanta Kumari to return.
C. Prasad, for the respondent.
453 of 1966, are in companyformity with Section 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter to be referred as the Code .
They were also entitled as them.
Later on, the appellants had filed an application to the Sessions Judge for restoring the appeal to file.
N. Prasad, for the appellants.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam, J. The short question that arises in this appeal, by special leave, is whether the judgment and order of the Patna High Court dated May 10, 1968, dismissing the Criminal Appeal No.
The learned Assistant Sessions Judge by his judgment and order dated August 31, 1966 substantially rejected all the pleas of the accused.
But on the evening of February 17, 1965, when he met the first and the fifth accused in the village, he was informed by the fifth accused that his paternal companysins, accused Nos.
Issue numberice.
In particular they pleaded a that Parmeshwar Pandey had numberniece called Kanta Kumari b they have number kidnaped Kanta Kumari and c in any case Kanta Kumari was number a minor as alleged but was a major about 18 years of age.
Pending the hearing of this appeal the appellants will companytinue on bail to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate.
In the morning of February 15, 1965, the companyplainant found that Kanta Kumari was missing from his house.
