1 2025:JHHC:33184 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 580 of 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 580 of 2005 [Against the judgment of conviction dated 21.03.2005 and order of sentence dated 23.03.2005 passed by Sri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-2, Bokaro in Sessions Trial No.96 of 1995 (Suppl. Sessions Trial No.6 of 2003)] -------------- Arun Kumar Mahto, Son of Sri Ramraj Mahto, Resident of Permanent Resident of Mauza-Kankar, P.S.-Nabi Nagar, District-Aurangabad, presently residing at Sector-II/D, Qr. No.302, B.S. City, P.S.-B.S. City, District-Bokaro … … Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Ramchandra Mistry, S/o Mahadeo Mistry, R/o Sector II-C, Qr. No.-4-286, PO & PS-B.S. City, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand … … Respondents -------------- PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR -------------- For the Appellant :Mr. Subhneet Jha, Adv. For the State :Mr. V.S.Sahay, A.P. P. -------------- Order No.15/ Dated 06th November, 2025 1. Heard Mr. Subhneet Jha, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. V.S.Sahay, learned A.P.P., appearing for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 21.03.2005 and order of sentence dated 23.03.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-2, Bokaro in Sessions Trial No.96 of 1995 (Suppl. Sessions Trial No.6 of 2003), whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years with a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, further sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months. 3. The criminal law has put into motion by lodging an F.I.R. being B.S. City P.S. Case No.179 of 1994, under Sections 366/34 of Indian Penal Code against the appellant and others. 4. The F.I.R. has been lodged on the written report of the informant. The brief fact of the case is that on 7.5.1994 at about 2 2025:JHHC:33184 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 580 of 2005 3.15 p.m. the daughter of the Informant aged about 15 years, went to the house of Kanhaiya Lal Choudhary, Resident of nearby locality i.e. Sector- II/C, Qr. No. 3-092 but she did not return till evening. Accordingly, the Informant started searching for her and came to know that said Kanhaiya Choudhary has taken her to the house of Arun Kumar Mahto, (the Appellant) situated at Sector- II/D, Qr. No. 1-302. The Informant further searched but could not get her whereabout. During search he learnt that his daughter has been sent anywhere by Kanhaiya Lal Choudhary, Ramraj Mahto and Satish, who resides near the house of Ramraj Mahto with Arun Mahto with the intention to marry her. The Informant learnt that the aforesaid four persons kept her daughter in the night in the hut of Satish, besides the house of Ramraj Mahto. 5. On the basis of said allegation, the police after investigation has submitted the charge-sheet under Sections 366 and 376 using section 34 of IPC and accordingly cognizance has been taken and the case has been committed to the court of Sessions. On conclusion of trial, the appellant has convicted only under Sections 366 of the IPC to which appellant has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To substantiate the prosecution story, altogether five witnesses have been examined. 7. P.W.-1 Shiv Nandan Mistri and P.W.-2 Ram Nagendra Prasad have been declared hostile. P.W.-3 Ram Chandra Mistri is the informant of this case. P.W.-4 is Dr. Maithili Thakur, the Doctor, who has examined the victim. P.W.-5 is the victim. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court to Para-16 and 17 of the deposition of the victim which reads as under:- 16. अŜण कु मार महतो ने मुझे शादी करने की नीयत से बहला-फु सलाकर अपहरण नहीं िकया था।" 17. अिभयुƅ ने मुझे कोई नशीला पदाथŊ नहीं İखलाया था तथा न ही उसने मेरे साथ कभी भी बलाǽार िकया। 9. On the strength of above deposition of the victim, it has been submitted that the offence under Section 366 of IPC is also 3 2025:JHHC:33184 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 580 of 2005 not made out because there is neither any intention for marriage nor rape. At best it is an offence under Section 363 of IPC. It has been further submitted that the appellant has already remained in custody for about 01 year, 04 months and 14 days and he is suffering from AIDS. On that basis, prayer has been made for reduction of the sentence to the effect period already undergone by the appellant. 10. Learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of conviction but could not point out any material to suggest that the kidnapping was for the purpose of marriage or rape because that factum has itself negated by the victim. 11. In view of the above and the materials available on record, the judgment of conviction dated 21.03.2005 and order of sentence dated 23.03.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-2, Bokaro in Sessions Trial No.96 of 1995 (Suppl. Sessions Trial No.6 of 2003) is, hereby, modified to the extent that Section 366 of IPC is converted to Section 363 of IPC. 12. So far as sentencing part is concerned, since the appellant has remained in custody for about 01 year, 04 months and 14 days and he is suffering from AIDS and the fact that the incident is of the year 1994, hence, it is, hereby, reduced to the period already undergone. 13. The appellant is on bail and as such he is discharged from the liability of the bail bonds. 14. In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed with the above modification in the sentencing part. 15. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, alongwith the copy of this Judgment. (Rajesh Kumar, J) Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi Dated 06th November, 2025 Shahid/N.A.F.R./