High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Manohar v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2240 of 1981  RD-AH 18811 (7 November 2006)
Criminal Appeal No. 2240 of 1981
State of U.P...........................................................Respondent
Hon'ble M. Chaudhary, J.
This is a criminal appeal filed on behalf of the accused appellant from judgment and order dated 22nd of September,1981 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit in Sessions Trial No. 28 of 1980 State vs. Manohar acquitting the accused under section 363 IPC but convicting him under section 366 IPC and sentencing him to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500.00 thereunder.
Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that at 9:30 a.m. on 8th of September, 1979 Ganga Ram lodged an FIR at police station Barkhera District Pilibhit alleging that he was resident of village Jadopur within the limits of police station Barkhera District Pilibhit. He married his daughter Nanhi aged about 15 years with Chheda Lal resident of village Didhauna within the limits of police station Bisalpur, District Pilibhit some three years ago and she was living at his house as her gauna ceremony had not taken place. Some 15 days ago one Manohar resident of same village Jadopur kidnapped his minor daughter Nanhi knowing that she may forcibly be seduced for illicit intercourse. Ganga Ram and Shisha Singh residents of village Jadopur saw Manohar taking Nanhi with him. He kept searching for his daughter but he could not find any trace of her. It appears that on 8th of October, 1979 Manohar taking Nanhi was going along the canal side at Piparia Medna and sighting a sub-inspector she ran towards him and that sub-inspector tried to catch hold of Manohar but he succeeded in making his escape good. Then that sub-inspector handed over Nanhi to her father Ganga Ram.
Nanhi was got medically examined by Dr Lakshmi Devi, Superintendent, District Women's Hospital, Pilibhit on 8th of October at 4:45 p.m.. She did not find any injury on her person. However she mentrioned in the report that her vagina admitted two fingers easily. Her radiological examination revealed that she was about 16 years of age.
After completing investigation the police submitted charge sheet against the accused accordingly.
After framing of charge the prosecution examined Nanhi ( PW 1) and Ganga Ram ( PW 2) in its support. PW 3 Sri Raja Ram Jatav, SDM Jhansi who recorded statement of Nanhi under section 164 Cr.P.C. on 12.11.79 proved the same. PW 4 Dr Lakshmi Devi who medically examined Nanhi proved the medical report ( Ext ka 3). She also proved the radiological report. PW 5 constable Mahendra Pal Singh proved check report prepared by HM Gajraj Sharma on the basis of written report handed over to him at the police station and entry regarding registration of the crime in GD made by him (Exts ka 6 & ka 7).
The accused pleaded not guilty denying the alleged occurrence altogether and stating that due to animosity with Dharajeet, cousin of Ganga Ram he was implicated in the case falsely.
On an appraisal of evidence on the record learned trial judge held the accused guilty of offence punishable under section 366 IPC and convicted and sentenced him as stated above.
Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment the accused appellant preferred this appeal for redress.
Heard Sri H.L. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Navin Shukla, learned AGA for the State respondent.
After going through the impugned judgment and record of the case the court is reluctant to agree with the finding of conviction recorded by the trail judge against the accused appellant.
Testimony of PW 2 Ganga Ram, father of Nanhi is more of less of formal nature as he proved FIR of the alleged kidnapping of his daughter Nanhi lodged by him at the police station. Now remains the sole testimony of PW 1 Nanhi. She deposed that the alleged evening after sunset Manohar came to her house; that at that time her father had gone to some Baba and Manohar took her forcibly from the house threatening her that he would shoot her and her father both; that for about 8-10 days he kept visiting with her to his relations and that one day he was taking her along the canal side at Pipria Medna; that she saw a sub-inspector and she ran to him and that that sub-inspector tried to catch hold of Manohar but he succeeded in making escape good. Testimony of this witness Nanhi does not inspire confidence in its truthfulness for the following reasons: (i) She deposed that the alleged evening after sunset Manohar took her forcibly from her house by hauling her and she went with him from her house raising cries. She also stated that several persons had come out from their houses though in the same breath she stated that none came out of his house. However a perusal of her statement recorded by the SDM Bisalpur goes to show that she stated therein that at about 4-5 p.m. the alleged evening Manohar came to her house and took her forcibly with him by pulling her at pistol point. It is incredible rather improbable that Mahohar took her with him forcibly in the evening and she went raising cries and none of the co-villagers met her in the village abadi. Had she been going with Manohar raising cries in the evening some of the co-villagers must have met her on the way and offered resistance. ( ii) She stated in her cross-examination that when she was got married she was about 15 years of age. She herself stated that the alleged incident of kidnapping took place after three years of her marriage. Thus according to Nanhi herself at the time of alleged occurrence she was above 18 years of age. (iii) She stated that a sub-inspector recovered her when Manohar was taking her along the canal side at Pipria Medna and that the sub-inspector took her to her village Jadopur and handed over her to his father Ganga Ram the same day. However, a perusal of the record goes to show that on 8th of October, 79 she was sent from the police station to District Women's Hospital Pilibhit where she was got medically examined by Dr Lakshni Devi and that she was handed over to her father Ganga Ram in his supurdagi on 12th of October, 1979 ( Exts ka 3 & ka2). (iv)A perusal of the statement of this witness Nanhi goes to show that she gave evasive answers to several questions which she could have answered. (v) A perusal of the FIR goes to show that Ganga Ram son of Khyali and Shisha Singh had seen Manohar taking away his daughter Nanhi but neither of these two witnesses was examined by the prosecution in its support. (vi) The sub-inspector who allegedly saw Nanhi with Manohar at the canal side on 8th of October, 1979 and recovered her has not appeared as a witness to support the prosecution case.
For the foregoing reasons, this Court is reluctant to place implicit reliance on the sole testimony of PW 1 Nanhi. Thus the prosecution has failed to bring the charge home to the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Court therefore finds that the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial judge is based on faulty appreciation of evidence which cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
The appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order is hereby set aside. Accused Manohar is acquitted. He is on bail. His bail bonds are hereby discharged.
Judgment be certified to the Court below.
Dated: 7th of November, 2006
Crl Appeal No.2240 of 1981
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.