Patna High Court
Buni Lal Mahto vs State Of Bihar on 25 July, 2013
Author: Akhilesh Chandra
Bench: Akhilesh Chandra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.870 of 2008
===========================================================
Buni Lal Mahto, Son of Ram Prasad Mahto, resident of Village- Akhta, P.S.-
Bairgania, District- Sitamarhi.
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Tripathi,Amicus Curiae
For the State : Mr. Binod Bihari, Additional Public Prosecutor
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 25-07-2013 Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Tripathi, Amicus Curiae for the appellant appointed on 11th September, 2008 and Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The solitary appellant, namely, Buni Lal Mahto, has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09th July, 2008 and 15th July, 2008 respectively passed in Sessions Trial No. 110 of 2001/140 of 2006 by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. - VI, Sitamarhi, whereunder the appellant has been found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten year and further to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. It was further ordered that in the event of payment of fine by the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.870 of 2008 dt.25-07-2013 2/6 appellant, the amount shall be paid to the victim as compensation.
3. The prosecution case, in short, as reveals from the written application (not formally exhibited), is that the prosecutrix became widow two years before and any how pulling her life along with a child roughly a year before the appellant, a co-villager, started coming to her house by showing sympathy and assurance to get married her and started developing sexual relationship which continued for six-seven months. During the period he took Rs. 20,000/- received as pension of deceased husband of the prosecutrix on the ground to meet the expenses of marriage with her. Ultimately, when she became pregnant and was putting pressure upon the appellant to execute the assurance of marriage, she was assaulted and thrown away.
4. The police started the investigation and instituted the case for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 406, 498 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet for the offences aforementioned, but after commitment, the trial was proceeded only for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, wherein, on behalf of the prosecution altogether ten Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.870 of 2008 dt.25-07-2013 3/6 witnesses were examined besides following documentary evidence:-
(i) Exhibit-1: Medical report,
(ii) Exhibit-2: Signature of forwarding report,
(iii) Exhibit-2/1: Signature of Sri R.P. Mishra,
(iv) Exhibit- 3: Formal F.I.R.
5. There is nothing in the defense except the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denying the allegations and suggestions given to the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution.
6. Out of total ten prosecution witnesses examined, P.W.- 1, Harinandan Mahto, P.W.- 2, Ashok Mahto, P.W.- 5, Hari Nandan Mahto, P.W.- 6, Hari Lal Mahto, P.W.- 7, Daroga Mahto and P.W.- 8, Ganeshi Mahto, since did not supported the prosecution version have been declared hostile and there appears nothing relevant in their cross-examination for consideration.
7. P.W.- 3, Sheo Shankar Ram, on the point said that both the appellant and prosecutrix are married and prosecutrix became widow and he heard about illicit relationship between the two resulting into pregnancy and delivery of a child for which there was a village Panchayati, wherein, it was also brought in notice that for the purposes of expenditure etc. in the name of marriage the prosecutrix has Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.870 of 2008 dt.25-07-2013 4/6 also been deprived of by Rs. 20,000/- by the appellant, who was sexually assaulted on the assurance of marriage, but nothing could be done. In cross-examination, this witness has said that during Panchayati the prosecutrix openly stated about her relationship with the appellant and as outcome delivery of child.
8. P.W.- 4, Dr. Madhu Singh, proved her medical report, Exhibit-1, relating to pregnancy etc. of the prosecutrix and, at the relevant time, she was declined to be cross-examined on behalf of the appellant. P.W.- 10, Hira Paswan, is a formal witness, proved Exhibits- 2, 2/1 and 3.
9. Now remained only witness, the prosecutrix, who in her examination-in-chief almost stated the prosecution version and during her cross-examination there appears nothing to disbelieve her. It further appears that she was well aware of the fact that the appellant is a married person and has already legally weeded wife besides children and she (legal wife) is also mother of seven children, eldest of which, at the time of her deposition, was about eighteen years old.
10. In such circumstances, it appears difficult to accept that any sexual assault of the prosecutrix would have been done perforce and attract the rigors of Section 376 of the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.870 of 2008 dt.25-07-2013 5/6 Indian Penal Code. But, at the same time, her statement as regard to sexual relationship with the appellant cannot be disbelieved and since the appellant was also knowing fully well that the prosecutrix is not his wife rather wife/widow of another, in spite of having such knowledge, he developed such relationship with the prosecutrix in the garb of assurance for marriage etc. This act of the appellant itself attracts and fulfilled the requirement constituting an offence under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, which reads as such:-
"497. Adultery - Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery, and shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. In such case the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor."
11. In view of the above, the conviction of the appellant, as recorded by the learned trial court, is converted from Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code to Section 497 of the same and with the above modification in the conviction, the sentence, for the offence under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, is reduced for the maximum punishment prescribed i.e. five years apart from fine as awarded. Accordingly, this appeal Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.870 of 2008 dt.25-07-2013 6/6 is hereby dismissed. Further, it is pointed out that the appellant perhaps has suffered imprisonment for about eight years. If so, the appellant, namely, Buni Lal Mahto, Son of Ram Prasad Mahto, resident of Village- Akhta, P.S.- Bairgania, District- Sitamarhi, is ordered to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
12. As none was appearing on behalf of the appellant in this appeal, Mr. Arun Kumar Tripathi, Advocate, was earlier appointed Amicus Curiae to assist the Court on behalf of the appellant and he has properly done his job. I appreciate the assistance given by Mr. Tripathi. Let a copy of first page and last page of the judgment be given to Mr. Tripathi, Advocate, so that he may get his prescribed fee from High Court Legal Services Committee, Patna.
(Akhilesh Chandra, J) Praveen-II/-