Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 360 (PAT)

Abhimannu Singh v. State Of Bihar

2001-04-19

INDU PRABHA SINGH

body2001
Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. The sole appellant has been convicted under Section 376 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 376 and rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code. However the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case in short is that on 30th January, 1996 at 8 a.m. in the morning the informant Shanti Devi was returning after throwing cow-dung and when she came near a maize field the appellant having a pistol came there and caught the informant and closed her mouth and dragged her in the maize field in which maize crop was standing. The informant raised alarm and tried to resist and to get free from the clutch of the appellant but the appellant pointed his pistol and threatened her to be killed. Thereafter in the maize field the appellant committed rape on the informant and fled away. After the occurrence the informant came to her house and narrated the whole occurrence to her mother and also to the neighbors. It has been also stated that on the date of occurrence her brother and father had gone out hence she could not go to the Police Station. On the same day at about 12.30 p.m. the SI Araria PS Sri Rajendra Singh came to the house of the informant and recorded her fardbeyan on the basis of which this case was registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of investigation the SI seized one under garment cloth of the informant stained with semen and prepared seizure list. He also got the informant examined by the doctor PW 4 and sent the seized clothes of the informant to the Director Forensic Science Laboratory, Bihar for examination. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was submitted against the appellant, cognizance was taken and accordingly the appellant was convicted. Hence this appeal. The appellant pleaded not guilty and stated that he had been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. 3. The prosecution in support of its case examined altogether six witnesses PW 1 is Biro Pandit, PW 2 is Radhika Devi, mother of the victim lady. PW 3 is Shanti Devi, the informant, PW 4 is Sunaina Kumari who had examined the informant. 3. The prosecution in support of its case examined altogether six witnesses PW 1 is Biro Pandit, PW 2 is Radhika Devi, mother of the victim lady. PW 3 is Shanti Devi, the informant, PW 4 is Sunaina Kumari who had examined the informant. PW 5 is Sri Rajendra Singh, Investing Officer and PW 6 is Shobha Rani. She is the wife of brother of the informant. Ext. 1 is doctors report Ext. II is fardbeyan of the informant, Ext. III is formal FIR and Ext. IV is seizure list of the clothes and Ext. V is the report of Director Forensic Science Laboratory. 4. PW 3 the informant has fully supported her statement as narrated in the First Information Report. She has stated that on the alleged date of occurrence at 8 a.m. while she was returning after throwing cow dung and when reached near the maize field of Shyamdeo the appellant came there running and caught her. He was having a pistol in his right hand and after showing the pistol he took her in maize field, closed her mouth and committed rape on her. Thereafter he fled away towards east side. When she came to her house she narrated about the occurrence to her mother and PW 6, Sobha Devi and PW 1 Biro Pandit and also to her neighbours. She has stated that the SI Police recorded her statement and sent her to the doctor PW 4 for her examination. She has also stated that the SI seized her undergarment which she was wearing at the time of occurrence. 5. PW 1, although he was resident of the village and is cousin of the informant has stated that at the relevant time of occurrence he was working in his field but he did not see the occurrence. When he heard hulla in the village he went there and saw crowd near the house of the informant and he learnt that the appellant had committed rape on her. PW 2 is the mother of the informant Radhika Devi. She has stated that her daughter Shanti Devi had narrated about the entire occurrence when she returned back from the maize field. PW 6 Sobha Rani has also supported the fact that the Informant had gone to throw cow dung, the appellant caught her and committed rape on her. PW 2 is the mother of the informant Radhika Devi. She has stated that her daughter Shanti Devi had narrated about the entire occurrence when she returned back from the maize field. PW 6 Sobha Rani has also supported the fact that the Informant had gone to throw cow dung, the appellant caught her and committed rape on her. PW 5 the IO has stated that on the alleged date of occurrence he was posted as SI in Araria PS and on the same day at about 12.30 p.m. he recorded fardbeyan of the informant Shanti Devi at her house. After recording the fardbeyan Ext. II case was registered. He has stated that he seized the undergarment of the informant in presence of the witnesses and has also proved the seizure list Ext. IV. He inspected the place of occurrence which was maize field of Shyamdeo Singh. He also found heap of cow dung near the pond. He has stated that the maize plants had grown 6 high in which any body can hide himself easily. He also found 20 plants of maize were broken and scattered and stated that the occurrence had taken place at that place. He sent the victim to the doctor for medical examination and also he sent the seized undergarment of the of the victim lady to the Director Forensic Science Laboratory. Bihar. PW 4 Dr. Sunaina Kumari had examined the informant on 30.1.1995 at 7 p.m. She has stated that she did not find nay external injury on her body. Pathological report was received and from that report she found no sign of rape. She has proved her report Ext. I. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was enmity between the father of the informant and appellant as the land which was given to the informant by the appellant on Batai was taken away by the appellant. As such he has been falsely implicated in this case. On the point of enmity the Court has rightly held that there was no old enmity on the record and it was not proved. I also feel that taking away of the land is not such an enmity which in normal course can compell the informant to falsely implicate the appellant at the risk of disgrace and humiliation of family prestige. In this case PWs 2, 3. I also feel that taking away of the land is not such an enmity which in normal course can compell the informant to falsely implicate the appellant at the risk of disgrace and humiliation of family prestige. In this case PWs 2, 3. 5 and 6 have fully supported the case of the prosecution. PW 3 the informant victim lady has clearly stated that the appellant forcibly took her to the maize filed and on the point of pistol committed rape on her. The Investigation Officer has also supported the case of the prosecution and stated that he visited the place of occurrence and found trampling mark at the place of occurrence. He also found several maize plants were trampled and broken at the alleged place of occurrence. The Investigating Officer also seized the undergarment of the informant bearing stains of semen which was sent for examination to the Director Forensic Laboratory (Ext. 5) and the report of the serologist proved that there was presence of semen on soya. Although PW 4 the doctor has not found signs of rape on the victim which may be possible in this case since she was examined after 12 hours and she might have washed her private parts during the time but the serologist has also found the traces of semen of human being on her saya. The ocular evidence itself is enough to prove that rape was committed on the victim lady which also get corroborated by the report of serologist and the deposition of Investigating Officer. 7. From the aforesaid discussion it is very clear that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the Court below has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code. I do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the Court below. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence passed by the Court below are upheld and the appeal is dismissed.