Patna High Court - Orders
Bipin Rai @ Bipin Kumar Rai @ Vipin Rai vs The State Of Bihar on 1 August, 2016
Author: Ashwani Kumar Singh
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.214 of 2016
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -633 Year- 2011 Thana -PURNIA COMPLAINT CASE District-
PURNIA
======================================================
Bipin Rai @ Bipin Kumar Rai @ Vipin Rai, Son of Yamuna Rai, resident
of Village- Madhubani Amla Tola, P.S.- Khajanchi Hat, District- Purnea.
.... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Kanhaiya Singh, Senior Advocate
Mr. Ranjan Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. S.A. Ahmad, APP
For the Private Respondent: Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Advocate
Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
5 01-08-2016Heard Mr. Kanhaiya Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Mr. S.A. Ahmad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, learned counsel for the informant.
The appellant has been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/-.
It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that initially K. Hat P.S. Case No. 182 of 2010 was 2 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.214 of 2016 (5) dt.01-08-2016 2/4 instituted under Section 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code on 28.05.2010 against the appellant of the present case. On completion of investigation, the police submitted final report, which was accepted by the court. However, the court proceeded on the basis of a complaint, which was filed by the informant of the case in the nature of protest.
It is submitted that according to the allegation, the victim was raped firstly in the year 2007, but the FIR was registered after three years of the initial date of occurrence. The alleged victim is a 40 years old lady and even in the complaint case, there is no medical evidence to support the allegation of rape.
It is also submitted that while the investigation was being conducted by the police, the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which she had categorically stated that no such occurrence, as alleged in the FIR, ever took place and she had registered the FIR against the appellant on being misguided by some people.
Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the application filed under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has submitted that the appellant had exploited the situation and 3 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.214 of 2016 (5) dt.01-08-2016 3/4 ravished the victim of the case. According to him, the last incident of rape took place on 30th November, 2009 and in the background of the fact that the victim is a respectable lady, the delay caused in filing the FIR would be of no consequence. He has submitted that being fed up with the circumstances under which the victim was placed, she had to take an extreme step and a case was registered against her under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in which she has been convicted and is lodged in the jail. In the background of the facts stated above, he has submitted that equity demands that the appellant, who has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code be also kept in jail.
Learned counsel for the State has adopted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the informant.
I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the record. Altogether three witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution during trial. Apart from the victim, her mother and her sister-in-law (Bhabhi) have deposed as prosecution witness no. 1 & 2. They are hearsay witnessed and they have even failed to identify the appellant in the court.
Keeping in mind the undue delay caused in filing the FIR, as also the fact that on completion of investigation, the 4 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.214 of 2016 (5) dt.01-08-2016 4/4 police had submitted final report and, during pendency of trial, the appellant was all along on bail and have never misused the privilege of bail, during pendency of the appeal, the appellant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea in Sessions Case No. 446 of 2012/CIS No. 2457 of 2013 arising out of Complaint Case No. 633 of 2011.
(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.) Sanjeet/-
U T