Pradeep Paramanik son of late Anil Pramanik, Resident of village Bado Kudma, Police Station v. …
Case Details
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 926 of 2006 [Against the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 07.06.2006, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella, in Sessions Trial No.155/2003] Pradeep Paramanik son of late Anil Pramanik, Resident of village Bado Kudma, Police Station; Kharsawan, District Seraikella, Kharsawan. …. Appellant The State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) Versus …..Respondent --------- PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Appellant : Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, Adv. For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, A.P.P. --------- JUDGMENT C.A.V. On 11.11.2024 Pronounced On: 20/12/2024
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for appellant Mr Jitendra Nath Upadhyay as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra appearing for the State. 2. Present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 07.06.2006 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella in S.T. Case No. 155/2003 (hereinafter call it as impugned order), whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for committing offence under Sections 376/511 and 354 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years for the offence under Section 376/511 and two years R.I. for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the I.P.C and both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 926 of 2006 Page | 1 FACTUAL MATRIX 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the prosecutrix is a married lady having three children. On 07.07.2003 at about 12:30 PM, she was making bidi and her son and husband had gone to cut wood. Meanwhile, present appellant came to her house and asked for bicycle for some purpose, but she disclosed that her husband had gone outside and when he will return, she had to go to visit a doctor as her daughter is ill, but the accused insisted upon lending cycle to him and started scolding her and threatening to the informant by using indecent words. It is further alleged that all of a sudden accused-appellant put off his pant, caught the informant by neck, laid her down on the cot and pull down her saree and tried to commit rape with her. It is further alleged that when informant was engaged in making Bidi, in order to save her, she picked up the blade, which was being used for making Bidi and gave a cut injury on the penis of the appellant, then he raising alarm and fled away and she raised alarm, meanwhile, several villagers assembled and she disclosed about the incident to them. Since her husband was not present in the house so, there is some delay in lodging this F.I.R. On the basis of the above written report of the victim F.I.R. Seraikella, Kharsawan P.S. Case No. 24/2003 dated 08.07.2003 was registered for the offences under Sections 323, 448 and 376/511 of the I.P.C. 4. The charge of investigation was undertaken by Sub-Inspector Mahesh Prasad Singh who in the course of investigation visited the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of witnesses. The accused surrendered before the court, then he has also interrogated with the accused at the prison. He also obtained the copy of the injury report of Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 926 of 2006 Page | 2 the accused-appellant and finding sufficient evidence against him submitted charge-sheet for the aforesaid offences. 5. After taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where charges were read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. After conclusion of trial, impugned judgment and order has been passed which has been assailed in this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant has submitted that in the F.I.R. itself which was alleged by the informant, there is no whisper of commission of rape with the victim rather there is specific allegation admitted to commit rape with her. The story as disclosed by the prosecutrix clearly indicates that while the accused was using indecent words and teasing the informant by physical touching her. She takes opportunity to cut the private part of the appellant. Therefore, the case falls under Section 354 even if, the contents of F.I.R. are taken in their face value to be true. As such, conviction and sentence of appellant for the offence under Section 376/511 is absolutely no warranted under law and beyond the weight of evidence available on record. It is further submitted that the appellant has also been held guilty for the offence under Section 354 of the I.P.C. and separate the punishment awarded to him in this regard. In the alternative, it is contended that in course of trial appellant has remanded into custody for more than 21/2 years and has sufficiently punished for the offence committed by him. It is further submitted that the victim lady has materially improved her earliest version and during examination at the trial has given vivid description Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 926 of 2006 Page | 3 about forcible commission of rape with her by the appellant. She has also taken false plea that blood stained cloths and her wearing clothes stained with semen, were also handed over to police, but the investigating officer (P.W.6) has categorically declined to seize anything in this case or produced by the informant. Therefore, the victim lady is not absolutely reliable and other witnesses of facts are hearsay witnesses from the victim lady herself. It is further submitted that in view of the aforesaid infirmities in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, the conviction for the offence under Section 376/511 of the I.P.C. of the appellant is liable to be set aside and this appeal may be allowed. 8. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of appellant and submitted that the victim lady is wholly reliable witness and nothing has been elicited in her cross- examination to disbelieve or cast doubt in her testimony. The evidence of victim reigns supreme in such cases. The prosecution story is further corroborated from the medical report of the appellant itself, proved by Dr. Shailendra Nath Pal (P.W.9) who has examined the appellant on 07.07.2003 at 05:30 PM and found an incised wound on the upper part and at the root of the penis 11/2 cm to ½ cm into skin deep. There is no rebuttal of this witness by the appellant. Therefore, conviction and sentence of the appellant does not require any interference in this appeal which is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed. 9. I have gone through the record of the case along with impugned judgment and order in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side. 10. It appears that altogether nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution to substantiate the charges levelled against the Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 926 of 2006 Page | 4 accused/appellant:- The most important witness of this case is the prosecutrix herself and other witnesses of facts have also came to know about the incident from her. P.W.1 Pradeep Pradhan has seen the accused fleeing away from the house of the prosecutrix keeping hand on his private part. P.W.2 Shambhu Parmanik is the husband of the victim. According to his evidence, at the time of occurrence he had gone to forest for bringing fuel wood. When he returned in the evening, he came to know from his wife that accused/appellant has adamant to commit rape with her and in that course, she has given cut injury on his penis. He also admits that the accused is the nephew of this witness and since several times there was no talk or visiting to each other house. P.W.3 Doli Pradhan has also claimed to have seen the accused fleeing away from the house of prosecutrix putting hand on his private part. P.W.4 Rohit Mahali has also stated the same line as P.W.3. P.W.7 Trivani Kumar Pahan has claimed to know about the occurrence from the prosecutrix while he saw her weeping and disclosed that accused has committed rape with her, then she cut his private part. P.W. 8 Sushil Mahato has been declared hostile and has not supported the prosecution story. P.W.9 Dr. Shailendra Nath Pal has medically examined the accused and his injuries are as stated above. P.W.6 Mahesh Prasad Singh is Investigating Officer of this case has categorically admitted that he has seized nothing in this case no blood stained cloth of the prosecutrix was produced by the victim. In herwritten report the victim has simply stated about attempt to commit rape with her Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 926 of 2006 Page | 5 by the accused. Therefore, he did not consider it necessary to get medical examination of the victim. He has also not seized any blade from the place of occurrence used in assailing to the accused. P.W.5 is the victim/prosecutrix, whose evidence deserves to be discussed at length. According to her evidence, on the date of occurrence at about 12:30 PM, the appellant came to her house while she was making bidi and her two years child was sleeping and was ill at that time. The accused came and started demanding bicycle, then she said that her husband had gone to the forest to take fuel wood and when he will come back, she had to go to hospital for the treatment of her ailing child. Then, accused started scolding and scuffling with her and caught hold of her by neck and laid down her on the cot and committed rape with her. She has further stated that after commission of rape when he left her, she caught hold of his penis and cut it by the blade which was used for making Bidi. Then, this accused run away raising alarm. She also raised alarm, then other villagers arrived and she disclosed everything about the occurrence. Thereafter, when her husband returned, she lodged this case. It appears that in her cross-examination also, she has stated that at the time of occurrence, she was pregnant about six months. Since police has not suggested for medical examination, hence, she did not undergo medical examination. She further states that her wearing clothes were stained with semen and she has also sustained some injuries over her neck. She has shown the cloths to police which was not seized. She also states that her pregnancy was terminated, but in this regard, she has no medical report. She has also given the blood stained blade to police, which was not taken. She has denied the suggestion of defence that in her written report, she has mentioned only attempt to commit rape with Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 926 of 2006 Page | 6 her, but not stated that she was ravished by the accused. It further appears that the contradictions appearing in the evidence of P.W.5 has been got explained by the defence in the evidence of P.W. 6 Mahendra Prasad Singh (I.O.) who has clearly admitted that in her re-statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. prosecutrix has stated that accused caught hold her by neck and laid down on the cot and she has not stated about the commission of rape with her. 10. It is settled law that in a case of rape, the evidence of victim reigns supreme and unless there is any cogent and concrete reason to doubt her testimony, can be made basis of conviction on the sole testimony of the victim without further corroboration as the victim comes at par with an injured witness. Therefore, if her testimony is found wholly reliable, can form sole basis of conviction. In the instant case, the earliest version of the victim/prosecutrix is that due to scuffle in lending bicycle to the accused, he started taking undue advantage of loneliness of the prosecutrix and caught hold of her and laid her down on cot with intention to commit rape with her, but could not succeed and the prosecutrix used the blade in assaulting the private part of the accused. Then, he suddenly raised scream and fled away. In the above mentioned circumstances, the part of the contents in F.I.R. and the deposition of victim on oath clearly goes to show that the accused has adamant to commit rape with the prosecutrix. It is also proved that cut injury on penis of accused/appellant was also found and proved. The learned trial court has culled out the truth from the evidence of prosecutrix. Therefore, the appellant was held guilty for the offence under Section 376/511 as well as 354 of the I.P.C. Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 926 of 2006 Page | 7 11. In my considered view, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 376/511 and 354 of the I.P.C. does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The version of prosecutrix is also corroborated from the medical report of the appellant itself which has been proved by P.W.9 (Dr. Shailendra Nath Pal). Hence, conviction of the appellant by the trial court is upheld. So far, the quantum of sentence is concerned, it is apparent that it was first offence of the appellant and in the course of trial of the case, the appellant has undergone imprisonment for about more than 2 years, 6 months. The occurrence is of the year 2003 and 20 years have been lapsed. In the factual background of the case, it appears that the appellant has sufficiently punished for the offence committed by him. 12. In view of aforesaid discussion and reasons, the conviction of appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376/511 and 354 of the I.P.C. is upheld, but the sentence awarded by the concerned trial court is reduced/altered to the imprisonment already undergone by him during the trial of the case. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence to the extent mentioned above.
Decision
13. Pending I.As, if any stand disposed of. 14. Let the copy of this judgment along with record of trial court be sent back to concerned trial court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi Date: 20 /12 /2024 Amar/- N.A.F.R. Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 926 of 2006 Page | 8