Jharkhand High CourtBijay Kumar Mehta vs State Of Jharkhand on 12 September, 2011Author:R.K. MerathiaBench:R.K. MerathiaCr. Appeal No. 342 of 2011

            Against the Judgment of conviction and order of Sentence
            dated 25.3.2011 and 26.3.2011 respectively, passed by
            learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-II, Hazaribagh, in
            Sessions Trial No. 211 of 2006.


            Bijay Kumar Mehta                                .....Appellant
                                           Versus
            The State of Jharkhand                     ..........Respondent


            For the Appellant    : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate
            For the State        : Mr. A.B. Mahato, APP
                                        ------
                                        PRESENT
                        The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Merathia

                                   --------
By Court.        This appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and
            order of sentence dated 25.3.2011 and 26.3.2011 respectively,
            passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-II, Hazaribagh, in
            Sessions Trial No. 211 of 2006, convicting the appellant undersection
            376of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to R.I. for seven
            years and also fine of Rs.2,000/-. In case fine is not paid, a further
            imprisonment of six months was imposed.
            2.   The prosecution case in short is that the informant-Veena
            kumari lodged the First Information Report on 24.1.2005 inter alia
            alleging that she was aged about 17 years. The appellant used to visit
            her house. One day finding her alone, he committed rape on her on
            the fear of weapon and then continued sexual exploitation on the
            pretext of marriage. On 23.11.2004, the appellant took her on some
            pretext. On 24.11.2004, he took her to Hazaribagh court and got
            certain   documents   signed    by   her   for   solemnizing    marriage.
            Thereafter, the informant and the appellant started living in the
            house of the sister of the informant. The other accused persons
            came and threatened her with dire consequences when the appellant
            said that he has to do what his family members direct. Then a
            demand of Rs.1 lac and one Hero Honda Motorcycle was made by the
            accused persons for solemnizing marriage and they took the
            appellant from the house of her sister. The appellant expressed fear
            that the accused persons may cause loss of life and property to her
            and her    family members, therefore a request was made to take
            proper action.
            3.   The learned court below framed charges undersections 366A,376and109of the Indian Penal Code andSection 4of the Dowry
Prohibition Act. The trial court has convicted the appellant only undersection 376IPC and has acquitted him on other charges.
4.    Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted
that ingredients ofSection 376IPC are not made out at all. Whereas
Mr. A.B. Mahato, learned counsel for the State, supported the
impugned judgement.
5.    It appears that the trial court found that the informant-Veena
Kumari was major. Only on the basis of the informant's version that
when the appellant made physical contact with her on the first
occasion, it was done on threat and on fear and against her will, the
appellant has been convicted undersection 376IPC. Admittedly, the
informant lodged the First Information Report after about 4 months of
such first occurrence. It appears that after an application was made
for registration of marriage, ( Ext-A), the appellant and the informant
started living in her sister's house and continued physical relations. It
also appears that dispute arose between the family members of the
appellant and the informant, allegedly for demand of dowry.
6.    After hearing the parties and going through the records, in my
opinion, the conviction undersection 376IPC cannot be sustained.
7.    In the result, the impugned judgement of conviction and order
of sentence dated 25.3.2011 and 26.3.2011 respectively, passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-II, Hazaribagh, in Sessions
Trial No. 211 of 2006, is set aside. This appeal is allowed. The
appellant is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any
other case.


                                                ( R.K. Merathia, J)




Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated the 12th September, 2011Rakesh/NAFR