Patna High Court - Orders
Shanti Devi vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 3 February, 2012
Author: Navaniti Prasad Singh
Bench: Navaniti Prasad Singh, Ashwani Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.100 of 2012
======================================================
Shanti Devi, W/o-Hiralal Ray, resident of Village-Pachbhiriya, P.S.-Garkha,
District-Saran. .... .... Appellant.
Versus
1. The State of Bihar. ... ... Respondent.
2. Jay Nath Rai, Son of Bishundeo Rai, resident of Village-Pachbhiriya,
P.O.-Jilkabad, P.S.-Garakha, District-Saran. ...... Accused/ Respondent
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH
&
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH)
*****
2 03-02-2012The present appeal is preferred under Section-372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the victim against partial acquittal of respondent no.2. On the basis of the statement of the appellant on 13.08.2001 made at Sadar Hospital, Chapra a first information report was lodged. She alleged that she was the alone daughter of her late father and was residing with her mother at her Naihar where her husband was also residing. At about 7:30 in the evening she and her mother were at home, meanwhile Jainath Rai and Dharmnath Rai scaled the boundary wall and came in the house. They locked her mother in one room and assaulted her with fists and slaps and at the point of pistol committed rape and after that they fled away after scaling the boundary wall. Ten minutes later her husband came and she narrated to him the whole incident. Her husband brought her to Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.100 of 2012 (2) dt.03-02-2012 2 the hospital where statement was recorded. She was medically examined by the ladies doctor, who is P.W.4, but she was never examined for rape. She was examined for bruises and other minor injuries on her body. Upon investigation, chargesheet was submitted. The accused persons having pleaded not guilty, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial where the charges were framed against the accused persons under Sections-376/511 of the Indian Penal Code, i.e., attempt to commit rape and Section-342 of the I.P.C.
In course of trial prosecution led four witnesses. P.W.1 is the mother of the prosecutrix. All she says that she was locked in one room and thereafter her daughter disclosed that she had been ravished by the two accused persons. There was no cross-examination as no defence Lawyer was present. P.W.2 is the husband of the prosecutrix. He states that when he returned home he was told by the prosecutrix about the incident. He proves the fardbeyan of his wife and signed on it. In examination-in-chief, he has stated that he had taken his wife to the hospital and she was fully medically examined. In his cross- examination, he states that there is no litigation as between his wife and the accused persons. He is specifically questioned about a case lodged by his wife against the accused persons in Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.100 of 2012 (2) dt.03-02-2012 3 which police after investigation found the case false. He specifically denied the fact that his wife has filed any title suit against the accused persons. He denied suggestion that this is a false case to settle the dispute in the family. P.W.3 is the doctor who only found abrasion and bruises on the body of the prosecutrix. P.W.4 is the prosecutrix herself. She states that the accused persons scaled the wall, came to the house, locked the mother in another room, assaulted her, raped her and then escaped. She admits that on her screaming noone came for rescue. Her husband came after about 10 minutes and took her to hospital. On basis of her written statement first information was lodged. The Court then specifically asked as to why the accused persons had done the alleged act. She replied that there were land related disputes and cases pending between the parties. The Court then asked what is the relation of the accused persons amongst themselves and with her. She specifically replied that they were father and son and were her uncle and cousin. She was not cross-examined. These depositions have been given to us by the learned for the appellant from which we have noted the facts. The Trial Court also noted these facts. The Trial Court then has noted that the defence filed various documents which were marked as Exts. A, B, B/1, B/2, C and D. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.100 of 2012 (2) dt.03-02-2012 4 These documents as exhibited by the defence counsel were taken in evidence without objection and marked as Exhibits. Ext. A is the copy of the F.I.R., as alleged the prosecutrix, against these accused persons a year earlier. A case was lodged in which final form was submitted by the police finding it to be false. The allegation was of cheating and registering false sale deeds. Ext.B/1 is the order passed in Title Suit No.101 of 2000 which shows that injunction petition filed by the victim was rejected by the Court of Munsif. A copy of the Complaint Case No.1849 of 2001 filed by the victim against both these persons for committing assault and rape, once again two months after the complaint is filed, which is pending and has been marked as B/2. Ext. D is the order taking cognizance. The defence brought these on record to show that the victim was persecuting them. The Trial Court upon these evidences found that the allegation of rape was not sustainable. The Trial Court further noted that the Investigating Officer was not examined and no independent witness was examined who are said to have assembled immediately after this incident was made public. The Trial Court has found that the allegation of rape was not substantiated. We agree. The Trial Court upon these evidence observed that when the victim was taken to the Hospital immediately she did Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.100 of 2012 (2) dt.03-02-2012 5 not even get herself examined for rape. The only complaint was of simple injuries on her body. Her husband categorically denied any dispute between the parties, but in the Court question the prosecutrix did admit that there were disputes. The certified copy of the first Title Suit was brought on record to prove them wrong. The relationship between the prosecutrix and the accused persons, as the prosecutrix herself admitted, is that of uncle and brother (close agnates) and repeated cases by the prosecutrix is not disputed. Therefore, the chance of false implication cannot be ruled out. It may also be noticed that the charge that was framed against the accused persons was not of rape but attempt to rape. The prosecutrix or for that matter the prosecution did not object to the charge. What the prosecutrix alleged was that she was raped, even though she was taken to a doctor immediately, absolutely there is no corroborative evidence for rape. It may be noted that two months after this incident again she had filed another complaint of rape by these two very closed agnates which is Exts.B/2 and D respectively.
In that view of the matter, in view of such evidence, we are of the view that the Trial Court did not err in holding that the allegation of rape was unfounded and was false though upon the evidence the Trial Court did convict the accused persons for Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.100 of 2012 (2) dt.03-02-2012 6 offence under Sections-323, 342 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code.
We are, thus, not inclined to interfere in the matter. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
,
(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)
Trivedi/- (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.)