Patna High Court
Krishna Mohan Thakur Alias B.D.O. vs State Of Bihar on 19 November, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000(48)BLJR539, 2000CRILJ1898
JUDGMENT R.N. Sahay, J.
1. By judgment and order dated 31-7-1992, Second Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga convicted appellant Krishna Mohan Thakur alias B.D.O. on the charge of abduction and rape of Archana Kumari, daughter of Kaushalya Devi. He has been sentenced to ten years imprisonment on the charge of rape and further seven years imprisonment under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code. He has also been convicted under Section 366 Indian Penal Code but no separate sentence has been passed under that section.
2. The appellant first preferred jail appeal which was registered as Cr. Appeal No. 195 of 1992. Later he preferred a regular appeal which was registered as Cr. Appeal No. 243 of 1992. The appellant was tried and convicted in the following circumstances.
3. On 9-1-1990 Kaushlya Devi along with her minor daughter Archana Kumari left her village Bagaul P.S. Babu Barhi, District-Madhubani for going to Kamtaul in the same district where elder daughter of Kaushalya Devi had been married with one Shambhu Thakur. Mother and daughter reached Darbhanga Railway Station by train at about 1.30 p.m. They had to catch another train for Kamtaul but they were informed that there was no train then available for Kamtaul. One Jogendra, nephew of Kaushalya's husband was an employee in Meera Hotel. She thought to spend the night in Meera Hotel. In the meantime, a man wearing Kurta, Dhoti and Cap came to them and enquired as to where they had to go. Having come to know that they have to go to village Kamtaul for going to village Ahiyari where her elder daughter was married, the man said that her son-in-law Shambhu Thakur was his co-villager and known to him. He also disclosed that the daughter of Kaushalya (wife of Shambhu Thakur) has given birth to a child who was ill and Shambhu Thakur had gone to Delhi. There was no reaction on the part of Kaushalya Devi on the information given by that man. The mother and daughter then went to Meera Hotel, Laheria Sarai and enquired about Jogendra. The man, who had talked to them at Darbhanga Railway Station again appeared there and informed them that Kaushalya's Samdhi and Samdhini had come D.M.C.H., Darbhanga and that he would arrange their meeting.
4. Without contacting Jogendra, the mother and daughter went to President Hotel with that unknown man where he requested the Manager to open three rooms. All the three sat in a room where tea was served. Thereafter, the man left the Hotel with Archana Kumari in a rickshaw on the pretext to take her to the father-in-law of her sister. He took her to Darbhanga and then to Muzaffarpur by bus. By then it was evening. The man took her to a lonely place where there were bamboo clamps and suggested for sexual intercourse. The girl refused and protested. Thereafter she was forcibly subjected to sexual intercourse. She became unconscious and when she regained her senses, she found herself alone. There was no sign of that man. Somebody took her to Ahiyapur Police Station. She was taken to Srikrishna Medical College and Hospital where she was admitted and treated. After seven days i.e. on 16-1-1990 at about 2.30 hours the police recorded the fardbeyan of Archana Kumari and seized her apparels. On information by the police, Kaushalya Devi along with others reached Srikrishna Medical College Hospital, Muzaffarpur and met her daughter. Kaushalya Devi reported at Ahiyapur Police Station that her daughter had been taken away by an unknown man. The case was registered at Ahiyapur Police Station on 16-1-1990. The appellant was arrested on suspicion and after investigation, charge sheet was submitted.
5. The defence of the appellant was that he has been falsely implicated because of previous enmity with the family of Shambhu Thakur, brother-in-law of Archana Kumari. It was also pleaded that the appellant had disease in his private part and as such he was incapable of sexual act. Both the defence was not acceptable to the trial Court for valid reasons. The trial Court found that the victim girl was below 16 years of age at the time of occurrence.
6. Kaushalya Devi, mother of the victim girl, in her evidence gave version with minute details of the case as noticed in the earlier part of this judgment. She identified the appellant in the Dock and indicated that he was the man who had met them in the hotel and then enticed away her daughter and she was made to believe by the appellant that her Samdhi Ramudyog Thakur happened to be his uncle. Archana Kumari also identified the appellant in the Dock. She stated that he was the man who raped her at Muzaffarpur.
7. Apart from the evidence of Kaushalya Devi and Archana Kumari, there is evidence of Badri Kamti, servant of President Hotel, Laheria Sarai, who deposed that the appellant had disclosed his name as Krishna Mohan Thakur when the Manager of the Hotel asked him to fill up the Hotel Register. The appellant without signing the Register left the Hotel with the girl saying that he would sign the Register after returning from the Hospital. The Manager of the Hotel also deposed that the appellant had gone to his Hotel and disclosed his name as Krishna Mohan Thakur.
8. Birendra Prasad Singh, A.S.I. Ahiyapur Police Station, testified that at about 10.00 p.m. on 9-1-1990 he found the girl Archana Kumari in the shop of Chhathu Mahto at Ahiyapur Zero Mile. He took her to the Police Station. The girl became unconscious and was taken to Srikrishna Medical College Hospital.
9. Learned trial Judge after due consideration of the evidence found that it is established that Archana Kumari was taken away after leaving her mother Kaushalya Devi without her able consent with an intent to force her to sexual intercourse. The doctor also found that the girl was brutally raped as per the medical evidence (Ext.-5). Learned trial Judge has dealt with some discrepancies in the prosecution case in para 15 of the judgment. Learned trial Judge has given cogent reasons and did not find any material contradiction in her evidence. The defence of the appellant that he was suffering from disease and was taking medicine was not accepted as discussed in para 21 of the judgment. The plea of false implication has been dealt with in para 18 of the judgment.
10. I have heard Miss Radha Rani Mitra, who has argued the case as Amicus Curiae. Learned counsel has taken pains to place the evidence in detail and argued with vehemence that the conviction of the appellant on the evidence as it stands has caused miscarriage of justice. It was argued that the appellant was not known either to the mother or the girl of the Hotel Manager. It is not known in what circumstances he was arrested. It was therefore necessary to place the appellant on T.I. Parade and identification of the appellant for the first time in Court cannot inspire confidence.
11. There is no doubt force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant but having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the identification of the appellant for the first time in Court was not sufficient for his conviction. It is well settled by the decision of the Supreme Court that the identification in Court is substantive evidence. It has come in evidence that the Hotel Manager and the servant of the Hotel had disclosed the name of the appellant and on that basis he was arrested. The mother, daughter, servant of the Hotel and Manager of the Hotel had enough opportunity to identify the appellant.
12. In the result, this appeal is dismissed and the conviction of the appellant is affirmed, but his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The appellant has remained in custody for about nine years. The appellant shall be released from custody forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.
13. Let a copy of this judgment be handed over to Miss Radha Rani Mitra.