Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 877 (PAT)

Ram Jatan Yadav v. State Of Bihar

2001-09-18

P.N.YADAV

body2001
Judgment P.N.Yadav, J. 1. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code). 2. It would be relevant and convenient to produce, in brief, the fact of the prosecution case. The informant Kusum Devi happened to be a village mid-wife residing at village Ashardhi. In the night intervening between the 3rd & 4th February, 1982 she went to village Laxmipur to attend to the daughter-in-law of one Ram Swaroop, who was to deliver of a child. The aforesaid woman did give birth to a female child. Thereafter the victim Kausmi Devi (PW 1) left for her house along with the appellant and one Sahdeo Yadav, who was also accused in the case, but died during the pendency of the case. On way to her house the victim was teased by the appellant and his associate Sahdeo Yadav. She lodged strong protest against their activity When they at about mid night reached the pyne near Chamartoli enroute to the house of the victim the appellant and Sahdeo Yadav caught hold of her, made her lie on the ground and they attempted to commit rape on her. She raised alarm on which her mother-in-law Rampatia Devi (PW 2), her husband Jagdish Mochi (PW 3), Srichand Ravidas (PW 5), Manikchand Manjhi (PW 6) and others arrived at the scene of incident and they also saw and identified the appellant and his associate Sahdeo Yadav fleeing away. 3. The victim woman (PW 5) went to the police station on the next day, i.e., on 4.2.1982 and lodged the FIR (Ext. 1) on the basis of which Nawadah PS case No. 5 of 1982 was registered under Section 376/511 besides some other sections of the Code. Investigation was taken up and completion thereof the charge-sheet was submitted and finally the trial commenced after commitment. 4. The appellants entered into defence and he examined defence witnesses, such as, Balmiki Prasad Yadav (DW 1), Chotan Yadav (DW 2) and Krishnadeo Prasad (DW 3). From the trend of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the appellant the defence seemed to be that of total denial and false implication out of sheer enmity emanating from land dispute between the parties. 5. From the trend of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the appellant the defence seemed to be that of total denial and false implication out of sheer enmity emanating from land dispute between the parties. 5. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge after taking the facts, circumstances and evidence brought on records into account found and held the appellant guilty and he convicted and sentenced him under Section 354 of the Code acquitting him of the charge under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Code vide the impugned judgment and order. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded against him the appellant preferred the instant appeal by contending that it was not based on law and facts rather it was based on mere surmises and conjectures. However, in course of hearing the learned counsel submitted that he no longer challenged and assailed the conviction of the appellant and a prayer was made that he be heard only on the quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant. It was, thus, the appeal was heard only on the point of sentence. 7. It was contended that the incident took place in the month of February, 1982 and the appellant had been running to courts for over nineteen years and, thus, he obviously had already been put to tremendous harassment and mental agony. Another contention was that the appellant had also suffered rigour of jail life inasmuch as he had been languishing in jail custody for about a month during the investigation. In the light of the aforesaid contention it was submitted that the appellant should be let off with sentence of imprisonment for the period already undergone by him. 8. Taking the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of the offence into account and also keeping in view the fact that the appellant had already been put to a lot of harassment and mental agony during the last over nineteen years he was sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500 (Rs. five hundred) and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 9. With the aforesaid modification in sentence the appeal is dismissed. 500 (Rs. five hundred) and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 9. With the aforesaid modification in sentence the appeal is dismissed. Let the learned Court below be directed to take steps for realisation of the amount of fine imposed upon appellant.