Patna High Court
Case Details
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.306 of 2001 dt.29-01-2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.306 of 2001 =========================================================== Bibhuti Mandal, S/O-Late Rajni Mandal, village Lakhi Tola, Garhbanaili, P.S.- Kasba, District-Purnia Versus .... .... Appellant/s The State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Tripathi ( As Amicus Curiae) For the State : Smt. Abha Singh (A.P.P.) =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 29-01-2013 1. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as amicus curiae as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record. 2. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence order dated 14.08.2001 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Purnia in Sessions Trial No. 460 of 1999/Trial No. 80 of 1999 by which and whereunder he convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of rupees one thousand and furthermore, in default of payment of fine, the appellant was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 3. In brief, the prosecution case, is that P.W.6, Milan
Facts
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.306 of 2001 dt.29-01-2013 Devi gave her Ferdbeyan to A.S.I., Kasba Police Station on 28.10.1998 at 07:00 A.M. to this effect that on 22.10.1998 at about 10:00 A.M. she had gone to cut grass near Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya and while she was cutting grass in channi field, appellant came there and snatched hasuli from her hand and threw her on the ground and committed rape on her. She requested the appellant not to commit the occurrence but he did not pay any heed towards the request and after committing the occurrence he fled away from there by his bicycle. She further stated that after the occurrence she came to her home and narrated the entire incident to her husband and after that her husband conveyed a panchayati but in the aforesaid panchayati, the people levelled allegation against her. She further stated that again after two days of the first panchayati, a panchayati was conveyed but appellant did not appear in the aforesaid panchayati and after that she lodged the case. 4. On the basis of aforesaid Ferdbeyan, Kasba P.S. Case No. 201 of 1998 under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and accordingly, formal first information report (Exhibit-3) was drawn against the appellant. The matter was investigated by the police and after completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. The cognizance of the offence was taken Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.306 of 2001 dt.29-01-2013 and the case was committed to the court of Sessions, in usual way. 5. The appellant was put on trial and accordingly, he was charged for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code to which he denied and claimed to be tried. 6. As many as eight prosecution witnesses were examined and prosecution also got proved medical report of P.W.6 as Exhibit-1, Ferdbeyan of P.W.6 as Exhibit-2 and formal first information report as Exhibit-3. The statement of appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the entire prosecution story and reiterated his innocence. 7. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant in support of his defence but trends of cross examination of prosecution witnesses as well as statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. reveal that the defence of the appellant was false implication on account of previous enmity. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant as amicus curiae assailed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order arguing that except the P.W.6, the prosecutrix and her husband, P.W.5, not a single prosecution witness came forward to support the prosecution case and as a matter of fact, the P.W.6 brought this case at the instigation of her husband, P.W.5 who has
Legal Reasoning
15. There is no dispute that an accused can be convicted only on the solitary statement of victim of rape, if the statement of victim inspires confidence to the court. 16. In the present case, the prosecutrix (P.W.6) and P.W.5 have properly explained the delay in lodging the first information report and there is nothing on the entire record to show the false implication of the appellant on account of land dispute. So far as minor contradictions occurred in the deposition of P.W.6 is concerned, the same do no go to the root of the case and, therefore, I am of the opinion that the prosecution succeeded to prove its case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts and the learned trial court Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.306 of 2001 dt.29-01-2013 rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. 17. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, this criminal appeal stands dismissed and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order are, hereby, confirmed. The bail bonds of appellant stands cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the trial court within a month from today and if he fails to do so, the learned trial court shall take all effective steps to procure the attendance of appellant so that he could serve out his sentences. It is made clear that the period already undergone by the appellant in course of trial as well as during pendency of this appeal shall be set off under Section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code. SHAHZAD/A.F.R. (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J)
Arguments
inimical terms with the appellant. In this connection, learned counsel Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.306 of 2001 dt.29-01-2013 for the appellant drew my attention towards para 6 of cross examination of P.W.5 and submitted that P.W.5 has very clearly admitted in his cross examination that the house of the appellant is adjacent to his house and similarly, P.W.6 has also admitted in her cross examination that her land is adjacent to the land of appellant. He further submitted that although, the P.W.5 denied this fact that there was land dispute between him and appellant but actually prior to the alleged occurrence a measurement of the land of appellant and P.W.5 was done by the Amin and in the aforesaid measurement, some altercation had taken place between the parties which resulted into false implication of the appellant in the present case. He further submitted that according to statement of P.W.6, the alleged occurrence took place between 10:00 A.M. to 11:00 A.M. near Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya and at the time of alleged occurrence several other persons were also working in their respective fields so it does not appear probable that appellant would commit rape on P.W.6 in an open place. So, the story, as propounded by the P.W.6, does not appear to be convincing and no reliance can safely be placed upon the statement of P.W.6. He further contended that no doubt, sole testimony of prosecutrix is sufficient to convict an accused under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and there is no need of corroboration of testimony of the prosecutrix, if the same inspires Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.306 of 2001 dt.29-01-2013 confidence to the court but in the present case, the testimony of P.W.6 is not beyond shadow of doubts and, therefore, the learned trial court committed error in convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code only on sole testimony of P.W.6. He further submitted that according to statement of P.W.6, alleged occurrence took place on 22.10.1998 and admittedly, the Ferdbeyan of prosecutrix was recorded on 28.10.1998. He further submitted that although, P.W.5 and P.W.6 tried to explain the aforesaid delay saying that due to panchayati the case could not be lodged in time but admittedly, not a single independent person has been examined by the prosecution on the point of panchayati. So, the prosecution miserably failed to prove this fact that any panchayati was held after the alleged occurrence and prosecution could not succeed to explain the aforesaid delay in lodging the case. 9. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order arguing that P.W.6 has, specifically, stated that the appellant committed rape on her on the alleged date of occurrence and after the aforesaid occurrence she narrated the entire occurrence to her husband, P.W.5. He further submitted that now it has already been set at rest by Apex Court of this country that the statement of victim of 376 of the Indian Penal Code does not require any corroboration, if Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.306 of 2001 dt.29-01-2013 the testimony of the victim inspires confidence to the court. He further submitted that in the present case, appellant could not succeed to demolish the prosecution case by bringing the material on record to show that he was implicated in false case on account of previous enmity and land dispute and, therefore, the learned trial court rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. 10. As I have already stated that prosecution examined, altogether, seven witnesses in course of trial. Out of the aforesaid witnesses, P.W.1 to P.W.4 have been declared hostile and they have not supported the prosecution case and stated that they had not made any statement before the police in respect of the alleged occurrence. 11. P.W.7 is doctor who examined the P.W.6 on 28.10.1998. This witness did not find any injury on private part of P.W.6 nor any sign of rape was found on her person. This witness found P.W.6 above forty years of age. 12. P.W.8 is Investigating Officer of this case and he stated that he recorded the Ferdbeyan of P.W.6 and also recorded the statement of witnesses who visited the place of occurrence and after completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet. The cross examination of this witness was declined. 13. P.W.5 is husband of P.W.6. This witness admitted that on the alleged date of occurrence his wife disclosed that appellant Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.306 of 2001 dt.29-01-2013 committed rape on her. This witness stated about the factum of panchayati and, specifically, stated that in the aforesaid panchayati, his wife was held guilty by the panches for the alleged occurrence. This witness, specifically, denied the story of the defence that there was land dispute between him and appellant. 14. P.W.6 is prosecutrix and she supported the prosecution story. She stated that when she had gone to cut grass, she was raped by the appellant. This witness has been cross examined at length by the defence but the defence could not succeed to elicit anything from her and there is nothing in her deposition on the basis of which her statement could be disbelieved.