Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1128 (PAT)

Ravindra Singh v. State Of Bihar

2006-11-28

INDU PRABHA SINGH

body2006
Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. The sole appellant has been convicted under Sections 452 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years under Sec. 376 and Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years under Sec. 452 of the Indian Penal Code. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case disclosed from the fardbeyan of the informant, is that in the morning of 21.6.89 her parents had left the village to Patna to attend Chakbandi Case. It has been submitted that in the night of 21/ 22-6-89 while the informant was sleeping in her room along with her eight years old younger sister, Nirmala Kumari and six years old brother, Pramod Kumar at about mid-night her next door neighbour Rabindra Singh allegedly entered into the room and covered the mouth of the informant. She woke up and she recognized Ravindra Singh in the light of the lamp burning inside the room. It has been submitted that the door of the room had not been bolted from inside and was only shut. It has also been stated that she asked Ravindra as to why he had come at night attired in a loin cloth. Then he asked her to keep quite. It is alleged that Ravindra Singh then forcibly committed rape on her thereafter there was bleeding from her private part and it was painful. It has been submitted that she pinched her sister, Nirmala Kumari who was sleeping by her side. She also got up and identified Ravindra Singh in the light of burning lamp and committing rape on her sister. It has been stated that on hulla being raised by her sister Nirmala, neighbours Laxmi Narayan Bhagat came to the house but by that time Ravindra Singh had fled away. The other neighbours Gupteshwar Singh, Satyanarayan Singh also arrived and she narrated about the occurrence to them. It has been stated that in the morning informant took her bath and washed her cloths and in the evening her parents returned and she narrated the story of alleged commission of rape. In the following morning she accompanied with her parents and went to Police Station where her fardbeyan was recorded in the presence of Kamla Prasad Singh and Vishwanath Singh. In the following morning she accompanied with her parents and went to Police Station where her fardbeyan was recorded in the presence of Kamla Prasad Singh and Vishwanath Singh. On the basis of the fardbeyan of informant Lilu Kumari, a formal F.I.R. was drawn on 23.6.89 at 9.15 A.M. The Piru Police Station Case No. 157/89 under Sections 452/376 IPC was instituted against the sole accused Ravindra Singh. After completion of investigation chargesheet was submitted, and accordingly, cognizance was taken and case was committed to the Court of Session for trial. 3. The appellant pleaded not guilty and has stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of the members of the IPF Party who were demanding money from him. 4. The prosecution in support of its case examined altogether seven witnesses. 5. P.W. 1 is Dr. Vijaiya Laxmi Sharma, she has examined the prosecutrix. P.W. 2 is Gupteshwar Singh. P.W. 3 is Nirmala Kumar, the younger sister of the prosecutrix. P.W. 4 is Kamla Prasad Singh, neighbour of the informant. P.W. 5 is Laxmi Narayan Bhagat who has been tendered. P.W. 6 is the prosecutrix herself and P.W. 7 is Ramesh Kumar Rai, advocate clerk who is a formal witness. 6. P.W. 1 Dr. Vijaiya Laxmi Sharma who examined the victim Lilu Kumari on 23rd June, 1989 found the following injury on the person:- 7. Injury lacerated, red swollen and oozing hymen present. On pathological report of vaginal swab dead spermatozoa were found. 8. She assessed the age of the prosecutrix about 14 years only. In her opinion, she opined that after medical examination and pathological report, it appears that the injury was caused due to rape. She exhibited injury report written by her which was marked Exhibit-1 . in her cross-examination she has also supported the commission of rape. 9. P.W 2 Gupteshwar Singh who reached at the spot soon after the occurrence has stated that he heard noise from the house of Shri Bhagwan Singh and he went to the place of occurrence and he saw the appellant fleeing away. He met the daughter of Shri Bhagwan Singh and she narrated about the commission of rape and she told him that Ravindra Singh has forcibly committed rape on her by pressing her mouth. He met the daughter of Shri Bhagwan Singh and she narrated about the commission of rape and she told him that Ravindra Singh has forcibly committed rape on her by pressing her mouth. In his cross-examination he has stated that he was aware of the fact that the appellant had received a letter before the occurrence that it the money is not paid he will be implicated in a false case. He, however, has denied that the letter was written by him. 10. P.W. 3 Nirmala Kumari is the younger sister of the informant. She stated that she was sleeping by the side of her sister and when her sister pinched her to wake up and she saw the appellant was committing rape on her sister (prosecutrix). Thereafter she and her brother raised alarm and on hulla witnesses came thereafter Ravindra Singh fled away. Her sister (prosecutrix) stated about the occurrence to her thereafter she stated the witnesses about the occurrence. In her cross- examination she stated that when her parents returned back F.I.R. was lodged. In her cross- examination she has also stated that in the night of occurrence she was sleeping with her sister (prosecutrix) and she remained sleeping and she did not awake. She also stated that she had no knowledge who had come in the night after the occurrence. 11. PW. 4 is Kamala Prasad Singh. He heard about the occurrence from Gupteshwar Singh (P.W. 2), thereafter he visited the house of prosecutrix and enquired about the occurrence and she stated that on 21.6.1989 in the night Ravindra Singh entered the room and committed rape on her. He stated that parents of the prosecutrix were not present as they had left for Patna. According to him, on 23.6.1989 in the morning at 9.15 a.m. the prosecutrix and her parents along with villagers went to Police Station and fardbeyan of the prosecutrix was recorded. He has proved his signature which is marked as Exhibit-2. He has stated that he is an accused in the murder case of the brother of Ravindra Singh. In connection with above case he was brought from jail. In his cross-examination he has also stated that P.W. 2 Gupteshwar Singh had not stated that he saw the appellant Ravindra Singh while he was fleeing away. He has also stated that RW. In connection with above case he was brought from jail. In his cross-examination he has also stated that P.W. 2 Gupteshwar Singh had not stated that he saw the appellant Ravindra Singh while he was fleeing away. He has also stated that RW. 2 had stated that he had identified Ravindra Singh in the light of his torch. He has also stated that on 22.6.89 he met prosecutrix for the first time and she stated that after occurrence her younger sister raised alarm because prosecutrixs mouth was gagged with lungi. 12. RW. 5 has been tendered. 13. RW. 6 is the prosecutrix herself. According to her, the occurrence took place in the night at 12 oclock when she was sleeping in her house. Her younger sister was also sleeping with her. According to her, a person came and committed rape on her and she did not identify him. She had stated that the statement recorded in fardbeyan was not correct. In her cross-examination she has stated that she had informed her parents that when she was sleeping with her sister Nirmala an unknown person came and committed rape on her. According to her, she has also stated before the Police that one unknown person came and committed rape on her. 14. RW. 7 is Ramesh Kumar Rai. He is a formal witness. He has proved the F.I.R., chargesheet and case diary which are Ext. 3, Ext. 4 and Ext.5. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in this case the prosecutrix- informant P.W. 6 has not supported the case of prosecution and has stated before the trial court in her statement that the person who committed rape on her in the night was unknown person whom she could not identify. She has also stated that the time of commission of rape, her younger sister RW. 3 was sleeping and she did not awake. She also stated that she told the villagers that some unknown person had committed rape on her and she did not name the appellant as having committed rape on her. She has also stated in her statement recorded by S.I. of Police, was not read out and she was asked to put her signature on it as such from the evidence of the prosecutrix herself no case \s made out against the appellant. She has also stated in her statement recorded by S.I. of Police, was not read out and she was asked to put her signature on it as such from the evidence of the prosecutrix herself no case \s made out against the appellant. The Court below has also failed to appreciate that P.W. 2 who claimed to have seen the appellant fleeing away admitted in his evidence that the appellant was threatened by a letter in which money was demanded and on failure it was written that he might be implicated in a false case. It was further submitted that in this case I.O. has not been examined who has investigated the case against the appellant. Lastly, it has also been submitted that the occurrence took place on 1989 i.e. 17 years ago and the appellant has remained in custody more than three years as such some lenient view may be taken while awarding the sentence to the appellant. 16. Coming to the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecutrix did not name the appellant in her deposition before the trial court that who committed rape on her, it is true that, the prosecutrix Lilu Kumari has stated that rape was committed on that night of occurrence but she could not identify who committed rape on her, and "accordingly, she has been declared hostile. On her cross-examination by the prosecution also she had denied that she had ever stated about the commission of rape by this appellant and also stated that her father and mother were not present on the day of occurrence. She has further stated that she informed the Police that some unknown person had committed rape on her and her statement was not read over and she was told to give her thumb impression on her fardbeyan. However, P.W. 3 who was sleeping by the side of prosecutrix on that night has supported the case of prosecution. According to her, the appellant Ravindra Singh committed rape on her sister. P.W. 2 who came after nulla has also stated that he saw the appellant Ravindra Singh fleeing while he was coming out from his house. He has stated that the victim Lilu Kumari had also informed him that appellant Ravindra committed rape on her. According to her, the appellant Ravindra Singh committed rape on her sister. P.W. 2 who came after nulla has also stated that he saw the appellant Ravindra Singh fleeing while he was coming out from his house. He has stated that the victim Lilu Kumari had also informed him that appellant Ravindra committed rape on her. It might be that the prosecutrix might have been won over and might have been threatened and due to that she turned hostile. Because she herself informed the witnesses about the commission of rape on her by appellant in the night of occurrence. P.W. 2 who is eye-witness has For the Respondent : Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sinha. also also supported the case 17. As such on the appreciation of the evidence the Court below has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 452/376 of the Indian Penal Code. However, considering the submission of learned counsel that the occurrence took place 17 years ago and the appellant has been sufficiently punished during the prolong litigation and has remained in custody for more than three years and also considering that victim has not supported the case reason best known to her, I am of the opinion that some lenient view has to be taken while awarding the sentence. 18. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice will be met if the sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period he has already undergone in jail. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence this appeal is dismissed.