Ravi Shankar Dubey v. State Of Bihar And ANR

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1291 of 2017 (4) dt.19-06-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.1291 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -612 Year- 2007 Thana -BAGHA DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH) ====================================================== Ravi Shankar Dubey, son of Late Chandrabhan Dubey, Resident of Mohalla- Haluai Tola (Kali Asthan), Bagha, P.S.- Bagha, District- West Champaran.

.... .... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Pradeep Kumar Gupta @ Kaju, son of Sadhu Halwai, Resident of Mohalla- Halwai Tola (Kali Asthan), Bagha, P.S.- Bagha, District- West Champaran.

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sri Binod Bihari Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 19-06-2017 Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Special Public Prosecutor.

Informant, who himself is not an eyewitness to occurrence had filed written report disclosing therein that on 27.11.2007 at about 5.30 AM his daughter Manita @ Reena was deceitfully taken away by Pradeep Kumar Gupta @ Kaju (respondent no.2) and further, it has also been incorporated therein that his brother Raju Prasad Gupta had sent the girl his brother Pradeep Kumar Gupta @ Kaju outside over tempo and in course thereof, the witnesses have seen, who also disclosed her to be in unconscious stage. From the judgment impugned, it is evident that neither the Investigating Officer nor the victim has been

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1291 of 2017 (4) dt.19-06-2017 examined. Learned cousnel for appellant has submitted that victim was not examined on account of her death. With regard to nonexamination of Investigating Officer, it has been submitted that was on account of lapses on the part of the prosecution. The age of the victim was not at all disclosed in the written report but from para-11 of informant (PW.5) he had disclosed the date of birth of victim as 21.07.1986 so on the alleged date of occurrence that means to say 27.11.2007 she was major.

Furthermore, considering the evidence of Shakuntala Devi, mother of the victim, it is evident that she happens to be consistent over her initial version to have allowed Manita to go along with Rohan to his place but her subsequent conduct did not justify the occurrence as alleged becuase of the fact that even being next door neighbour she has not seen victim being taken away by the respodent no.2/accused as well as from the deposition of the other PW, it is evident that victim Manita along with Pradeep Kumar Gupta @ Kaju themselves sat in tempo in cordial way. That being so, instant appeal lacks merit and is accordingly rejected.

(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.) Prakash Narayan U T