Patna High Court
Kapildeo Sahni @ Kapil Sahni vs State Of Bihar on 22 February, 2018
Author: Vinod Kumar Sinha
Bench: Vinod Kumar Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.260 of 2003
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District-
EASTCHAM PARAN(MOTIHARI)
===========================================================
Kapildeo Sahni @ Kapil Sahni, son of Girja Sahni, resident of village Bariarpur,
P.S. Chhatauni, District East Champaran
.... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar
.... .... Respondent
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sandeep Kumar with Mr. Abhishek
Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar, APP
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 22-02-2018
Sole appellant stands convicted under Section 366A of the
Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for three years, including a fine of Rs.1000/- with default clause by
the judgment dated 4.4.2003 and order dated 5.4.2003 passed by Sri
Navin Kumar Sinha, the then Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.V,
East Champaran, Motihari in Sessions Trial No. 426/96/11/02.
2. Prosecution case, in short, is that the informant Ramanand
Rai (P.W.5) has lodged a written report before the Motihari Sadar
Police Station on 5.7.1994 stating, inter alia, therein that his daughter
Usha Kumari aged 15 years was living in his house and appellant
enticed her away on 2.6.1994 and when he enquired about her from
Ramadhin Sahni he told him that he would help him in bringing her
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.260 of 2003 dt.22-02-2018
2/8
daughter on the condition that he would not cause any harm to her and
thereafter the informant went to the house of appellant Kapildeo
Sahani and enquired whereabouts of him and he was informed that
appellant Kapildeo Sahni had fled away. Thereafter the present case
has been lodged.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, Kesaria
P.S.Case No. 48 of 1994 was registered and police after investigation
submitted charge sheet against the appellant and Ramadhin Sahni
under Section 366A IPC. However, it appears that Ramadhin Sahni
died and, as such, case against him was dropped. Finally the case was
committed to the court of sessions, which ultimately came to file of
Sri Navin Kumar Sinha, the then Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.V,
East Champaran, Motihari for trial and disposal.
4. Charge under Section 366A IPC was framed against the
appellant to which he has denied the charge and claims to be tried.
5. During course of trial altogether seven witnesses have
been examined on behalf of prosecution, they are P.W.1 Ramawati
Devi, who is sister of the victim girl, P.W.2 Tila Devi, who is mother
of the victim girl, P.W.3 Ramashish Rai, who is co-villager, P.W.4
Bhikhari Rai, who is also co-villager, P.W.5 Ramanand Rai
(informant), who is father of victim girl, P.W.6 Dr. Manjula Nath,
who has examined the victim girl and P.W.7 Sheikh Sagir Hussain,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.260 of 2003 dt.22-02-2018
3/8
who is a formal witness and has proved the FIR.
6. It appears that neither the victim girl nor the I.O. has been
examined in this case.
7. The defence of accused person as per trend of cross
examination and statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is of false
implication and innocence and from trend of cross examination it
appears that defence has come with a case that the victim girl had
gone herself out of her own sweet will and married the appellant.
8. Learned trial court has found the victim girl as minor at
the time of occurrence and on such finding it was observed that her
consent was no consent in the eye of law and convicted the appellant
under Section 366A IPC.
9. Aggrieved by the above judgment, the present appeal has
been filed.
10. Contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the
victim girl was major at the time of occurrence, which is evident from
the statement of P.W.1, who is sister of the victim, and from the report
of the Doctor and further the evidence of P.W.5 (informant) shows
that she had gone out of her own sweet will with the appellant and
married him but in spite of aforesaid evidence learned trial court has
convicted the appellant under Section 366A IPC, which is erroneous
in nature and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.260 of 2003 dt.22-02-2018
4/8
there is nothing on record to show that she was subjected to rape
either by the appellant or anyone and the Doctor has not found any
sign of rape upon her. Further submission is that there is delay of
more than one month in lodging the FIR and for that no explanation
has been given.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has
defended the judgment on the ground that evidence of Doctor shows
that she was minor at the time of occurrence and, as such, there is no
infirmity in the impugned judgment.
12. Considering the rival contentions of both sides and from
perusal of evidence of P.W.5 (informant) it appears that though he has
supported the prosecution case that appellant enticed her away for the
purpose of marriage but in his cross examination he has admitted in
paragraph-5 of his evidence that she looks like a major at the age of
17-18 years and later on he also came to know that she had gone out
of her own sweet will and married the appellant. Evidence of P.W.1,
who is sister of the victim girl, shows that in her cross examination
she had stated she was five years younger than the victim girl and she
had mentioned her age as 35 years and if it is found true the age of the
victim girl was 30 years at the time of her deposition. P.W.2 is mother
of victim girl and also a hearsay witness as she has seen nothing on
her own eyes. P.Ws. 3 and 4 are not the eye-witnesses to the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.260 of 2003 dt.22-02-2018
5/8
occurrence. So far evidence of P.W.5 (informant) is concerned, it
appears that he has admitted in his evidence that her daughter looks
like a girl aged about 17-18 years and she had gone with the appellant
out of her own sweet will and married the appellant. Evidence of
P.W.6, the Doctor, who has examined the victim girl, shows that she
had examined the victim after one year of the alleged occurrence and
at the time of her examination she was aged about 17-18 years. The
Doctor has also stated in her cross examination that assessment of age
may vary by 1-2 years. It further appears that the occurrence is of
2.6.1994and FIR has been lodged on 5.7.1994 and, as such, it does not look probable that a person whose daughter was kidnapped/abducted will wait for more than one month in lodging the FIR and even not informing to the Panchayat or Choukidar about the occurrence for such a long time. So far finding of learned trial court that victim girl was a minor is concerned, it appears that according to evidence of P.W.1 she was aged about 22 years and Doctor has assessed her age at 17-18 years and informant (P.W.5) has also stated that she looks like a major aged 17-18 years.
13. In this regard Hon'ble Apex Court has held in several decisions that the assessment of age by Medical Board shall be subject to variable of 1-2 years and such view has also been upheld in the case of Durga Ram alias Gunga vs. State of Rajasthan : (2015) 2 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.260 of 2003 dt.22-02-2018 6/8 SCC 775, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held in paragraph-17 of the judgment as follows :
"17. The general rule about age determination is that the age as determined can vary plus minus two years but the Board has in the case at hand spread over a period of six years and taken a mean to fix the age of the appellant at 33 years. We are not sure whether that is the correct way of estimating the age of the appellant. What reassures us about the estimate of age is the fact that the same is determined by a Medical Board comprising Professors of Anatomy, Radio diagnosis and Forensic Medicine whose opinion must get the respect it deserves. That apart, even if the age of the appellant was determined by the upper extremity limit i.e. 36 years the same would have been subject to variation of plus minus 2 years meaning thereby that he could as well be 34 years on the date of the examination. Taking his age as 34 years on the date of the examination he would have been 18 years, 2 months and 7 days on the date of the occurrence but such an estimate would be only an estimate and the appellant may be entitled to additional benefit of one year in terms of lowering his age by one year in terms of Rule 12(3)(b) (supra) which would then bring him to be 17 years and 2 months old, therefore, a juvenile."
14. Similar view has been taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukarrab and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh :
(2017) 2 SCC 210. In the present case, her age was assessed by Doctor at 17-18 years and if variance of 1-2 years shall be considered, the age of the victim may be 16-20 years of age and accused is entitled for the age which is in his favour that shows that she was major at the time of occurrence but learned trial court has not Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.260 of 2003 dt.22-02-2018 7/8 considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter and the victim girl was held to be a minor.
15. Apart from that, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Ali alias Guddu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh : (2015) 7 SCC 272 has considered the delay in lodging FIR in such type of cases and has held in paragraph-27 of the said judgment as follows :
"27. Be it clearly stated here that delay in lodging FIR in cases under section 376 IPC would depend upon facts of each case and this Court has given immense allowance to such delay, regard being had to the trauma suffered by the prosecutrix and various other factors, but a significant one, in the present case, it has to be appreciated from a different perspective. The prosecutrix was missing from home. In such a situation, it was a normal expectation that either the mother or the brother would have lodged a missing report at the police station. The same was not done. This action of PW 2 really throws a great challenge to common sense. No explanation has been offered for such delay. The learned trial Judge has adverted to this facet on an unacceptable backdrop by referring to the principle that prosecutrix suffered from trauma and the constraint of the social stigma. The prosecutrix at that time was nowhere on the scene. It is the mother who was required to inform the police about missing of her grown-up daughter. In the absence of any explanation, it gives rise to a sense of doubt."
16. Apart from that, the victim girl has not been examined in this case and even I.O. has also not been examined. Evidence of one witness shows that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has not supported the prosecution case, rather his evidence shows that victim had gone out of her own sweet will with Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.260 of 2003 dt.22-02-2018 8/8 the appellant and in such a situation non-examination of I.O. has caused prejudice to the defence also. Learned trial court has also not appreciated the above fact.
17. Considering the entire aspects of the matter, the conviction of the appellant under Section 366A IPC does not inspire confidence and the same suffers from infirmities.
18. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The judgment iof conviction and order of sentence are set aside. As the appellant is on bail, he is directed to be discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond.
(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) spal/-
AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 26.2.2018 Transmission 26.2.2018 Date