Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 608 (PAT)

Pramod Lal @ Prarnod Prasad v. State Of Bihar

2002-05-14

S.N.PATHAK

body2002
Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. These two revisions have been taken up for analogous hearing because they have been preferred against the common judgment dated 23.1.2001 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge VI, Muzaffarpur, in Session trial no. 370/97. Revisionist of Cr. Rev. no. 65/2001 only Pramod Lal @ Pramod Prasad, and revisionists namely Ram Swaroop Saw, Rup Narain Saw and Ram Chandra Saw of Cr. Rev. no. 84/2001, were all convicted for the offence under section 354/34 IPC and they were sentenced to undergo RI for 3 months for the aforesaid offence. 2. It was submitted by the revisionists lawyer that revisionists were prosecuted on the allegation that on 24.5.96 informant, Munni Devi, was going to see Mukhiya of village Dharampur and when she reached 300-400 yards away from her house, at 4 p.m., she found all the revisionists and one Kishori Paswan taking toddy under a particular tree. When these persons sighted the informant, Rup Narain Saw and Pramod Lal accosted her and asked her as to where she was going. The informant told them that it was none of their business to know where she was going. Then Rup Narain Saw and Pramod Lal came near her and caught her by her arm and abused her. When she wanted to get herself released from the clutches of Ram Swaroop Saw, Ram Chandra Saw and Kishori rushed there and caught hold of her. When she grappled with them for her release, all of them forced her down on the ground and wanted to ravish her. She raised alarm which attracted several persons to the scene of the occurrence which made the accused fly. When she was protesting, she was fisted and slapped by the accused persons and her blouse was torn. It was further submitted by the revisionists lawyer that witnesses who were examined in the court to support the aforesaid allegations of the informant were only eight in number. PW 8 was I.O., P.W. 7 was the informant herself, P.Ws 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 were declared hostile because they made one line statement that they knew nothing of the case. So, so-called witnesses named in the fardbeyan of the informant failed to support and corroborate the allegation of the informant. PW 8 was I.O., P.W. 7 was the informant herself, P.Ws 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 were declared hostile because they made one line statement that they knew nothing of the case. So, so-called witnesses named in the fardbeyan of the informant failed to support and corroborate the allegation of the informant. PW 3 was the doctor who referred to certain simple injuries on the person of the informant which were tenderness or abrasion on some parts of the body. PW 8 was the I.O., who failed to find any trace of toddy being consumed by the accused persons because he found no toddy pot etc. He also did not state that the informant showed her torn blouze to him. So in the opinion of the revisionists lawyer, there was no circumstantial evidence corroborating informants allegation regarding attempt of ravishment on the part of the revisionists. PW 7, was informant herself, who had admitted that there was enmity between her father and accused-revisionists. Moreover, she was a woman of easy virtue and she was in the habit of filing cases against several persons and one of the case, in this connection, ended in final report and there was recommendation for prosecuting her under sections 182 and 211 IPC (exhibits A & B). In such circumstances, the sole testimony of the informant was not to be relied upon by the court below and so when the court convicted the revisionists on the sole testimony of the informant, this order of conviction is bad in law. 3. Now the moot question is whether on the sole testimony of the victims conviction of accused can be had. There is no bar to record the order of conviction on the sole testimony of the victim if his or her evidence is otherwise reliable and unimpeachable. In the instant case, allegations levelled by the informant were supported only by her own testimony and no other witness came forward to support her allegation even though some of them were named in the FIR itself. It also transpires from the circumstances of the case, that she filed similar case against some persons which ended in final report. There was allegation that she was a woman of easy virtue which she had denied, but her testimony would not be discarded even though she was woman of easy virtue. It also transpires from the circumstances of the case, that she filed similar case against some persons which ended in final report. There was allegation that she was a woman of easy virtue which she had denied, but her testimony would not be discarded even though she was woman of easy virtue. The simple and relevant question, in this case, is whether her evidence was otherwise convincing or reliable and this question shall be answered by the circumstances on the record. She had admitted in para-6, in her evidence, that she had filed case against Pramod Lal and Mahesh Mahto for assault which ended in their acquittal. She again admitted that she filed another case against Mahesh Mahto. However, she denied that this case ended in final report and she was recommended for prosecution under sections 211 and 182 IPC, but exhibit-A belied her denial. So these circumstances were derogatory to the veracity of the testimony of PW 7. There were some other circumstances which are listed below. This PW admitted in her evidence at para 4 that her fathers name was Govind Mahto who was dead. Again at para-5 she said that her father was Md. Sadique. She was living with Birendra Kr.Mahto for the last 13 years and she gave birth to four sons and two daughters. She has one Natti and one Natni also. The aforesaid statements of this witness would indicate that she was an adult lady and so it would be doubtful whether the accused persons would intend to commit rape upon such an adult lady. The court assessed her age as 45 years when she was examined. Moreover, it is not understandable why this witness gave misleading names of her father once she gave her fathers name as Govind Mahto and then she gave it as Md. Sadique. I fail to understand how such witness can be relied upon regarding her allegations of attempted rape and assault upon her. 4. There was another contention of the revisionists lawyer that Kishori Paswan who was facing trial alongwith the revisionists, was acquitted by the trial court although there is similar evidence against him. But I find that Kishori was acquitted because PW 7 in her cross-examination stated that Kishori was not taking toddy and he was forbidding other accused persons from committing the alleged occurrence. But I find that Kishori was acquitted because PW 7 in her cross-examination stated that Kishori was not taking toddy and he was forbidding other accused persons from committing the alleged occurrence. So Kishoris acquittal was not based on similar evidence as has been stated by the revisionists lawyer. Whatever may be the circumstances of the case, it is apparent that on the record, there was the only testimony of the victim herself which was redolent with doubts. In view of the aforesaid retrograde circumstances on the record, it was difficult to rely on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim. The injuries which she has sustained were all simple and could be easily manufactured or could occur on account of fall. Kishori who was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., gave a different story of the alleged occurrence. He said that there was panchayati In which so called husband of the victim, Bindeshwar Prasad, was present and he asked as to who was the leader. Thereafter there was Hangama and the accused persons assaulted the wife of Bindeshwar when she was coming. The aforesaid exculpatory statement of Kishori in the first place cannot be used against other accused persons, rather this gave a different picture of the alleged occurrence. Since Bindeshwar was hacked in the panchayati, chance of false implication at the instance of his wife is very much there. Moreover PW 7 admitted that her son was working at the house of Daroga of Meenapur police station at the relevant time. So all circumstances were present for false implication at the instance of Daroga. 5. As a result of aforesaid discussions of the evidence on record, I am constrained to held that evidence of sole victim was not reliable. I am further to hold that conviction cannot be had on the uncorroborated testimony of sole witness, specially when it is rendered unreliable in the special facts and circumstances of a particular case. 6. In the result, I hold that the order of conviction recorded by the two courts below are legally bad. These revision applications are, accordingly, allowed and the judgments of the two courts below are set aside. Accused-revisionists shall stand acquitted.