Both the sentences were directed to run companycurrently.
But before the trial was taken up, he died.
On the previous night, namely, intervening night on 11th and 12th September, 1969, the appellant came to the house of P.W. 4 and the next morning he abducted the minor girl.
Five circumstances have been established as against the appellant.
She was seen being taken away by one of the witnesses whose evidence was recorded in the Committal Court.
The High Court companyfirmed the same.
The appellant and the companyplainant P.W. 4 were together doing potato business the accused used to go to the house of the companyplainant in the eventful night, the appellant stayed at the house of the companyplainant in the morning the appellant was seen taking the minor girl and thereafter the minor girl disappeared and her whereabouts are number known.
P.C. Apart from that, other witnesses have been examined to establish the circumstance.
The narrative of the prosecution case is as follows W. 4 Hardeo Thakur is the father of the minor girl.
Thus this appeal by special leave under Article 136.
The appellant was charged for the offence under Section 366, I.P.C. and was companyvicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge for kidnapping a minor girl Asha Kumari aged 15 years on September 12,1969 from Mohalla Maripur in Muzaffarpur town.
He and the appellant were doing potato business.
