Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 582 (JHR)

Paltan Verma @ Ravi Verma v. State of Jharkhand

2006-05-09

D.P.SINGH

body2006
JUDGMENT : By Court.- The sale appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.11.2000 passed by Sri Bhawesh Chandra Jha, 3rd Assistant Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No. 277 of 1997 whereby the appellant has been convicted under sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R.l. for five years and seven years respectively and also to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- on each count and in default of payment of fine to serve S.l. for one year each and both the sentences have been directed to run one after another. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution story before the trial court was that the informant victim was recovered from a house situated at Sakchi, Jamshedpur by the police party alongwith P.W.1 and father of the appellant in the night of 24th March, 1997. The victim, on her own, stated before Jugsalai police next day at 7 a.m. that she was a student of B.A. (Part-1) in Kalyan College, Bhilai where she used to reside with her Mausa and Mausi (P.W. 4), for study. She further stated that the appellant Paltan used to visit her Mausa's residence frequently. According to her, in the afternoon of 21st March, 1997 the appellant alongwith two boys came to her college and forcibly taken her away in a Maruti Car. Thereafter she was kept in the house of the Mausa and Mausiof the appellant situated in Karkari village wherein in the night the appellant sexually exploited her. She further stated that from that place they left for Jamshedpur and from Jamshedpur she was brought to Jugsalai to the house of the appellant but when they were not given shelter, they went to Sakchi, Jamshedpur and kept confined there. She has asserted specifically that the appellant forcibly abducted her and committed rape on her. 3. Jugsalai Police on the statement of the victim registered Golmuri P.S. Case No. 48 of 1997 under sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and investigated the case. The appellant was arrested and finally charge-sheet was submitted against him for those two offences. 3. Jugsalai Police on the statement of the victim registered Golmuri P.S. Case No. 48 of 1997 under sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and investigated the case. The appellant was arrested and finally charge-sheet was submitted against him for those two offences. The case was committed for trial by the court of sessions where the trial court framed charge against the appellant under sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code on 3rd October, 1997 to which the appellant pleaded not guilty. 4. The trial court after examining the prosecution and defence witnesses found and held him guilty as mentioned above and sentenced him accordingly. The appellant has remained in custody for nearly five years before this Court admitted him bail during the pendency of this appeal. 5. This appeal has been filed on the grounds that the learned lower court has not considered the defence properly and failed to appreciate that there was no force used in taking away the victim from house of her Mausa. It is further submitted that the evidence of the victim P.W. 1 is contradictory to her earlier statements and does not support the allegation of rape against the appellant. It was further pointed out that the recovery of the victim was made in presence of the father of the appellant that also shows the innocence of the appellant The memo of appeal further highlighted the fact that defence witnesses has supported the love story between the victim and the appellant, supported by letters written by the appellant and marked as Ext. A Series in defence. Therefore the learned lower court without considering the defence properly has convicted the appellant on contradictory evidence. It is further asserted that the victim being above eighteen year of age no offence under Section 366 of the I.P.C. will be made out. It was further submitted that the medical report further does not support the prosecution version that the victim was subjected to rape. As such the appellant who has remained in custody for five years may be acquitted of the charges. 6. It was further submitted that the medical report further does not support the prosecution version that the victim was subjected to rape. As such the appellant who has remained in custody for five years may be acquitted of the charges. 6. The learned APP opposed this contention on the grounds that the appellant was arrested by the police along with victim from Sakchi, Jamshedpur and immediately the statement of the victim was recorded by police in which she has specifically stated that she was abducted from Bhilai and taken to different places in between which she has been subjected to rape. Therefore, the conviction deserves to be maintained. 7. I have carefully gone through the materials on records and the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. The recovery of the victim from Sakchi, Jamshedpur along with appellant has not been denied by the defence. D.W. 1 Ganeshi Bai has stated clearly that on the occasion of Hali in the year 1997 the appellant along with victim has come to her house and she has washed their clothes. She further asserted that both of them were saying that they would marry. This witness has stated specifically vide para 2 that in the night at about 10 p.m. police has recovered them from her house situated at Sakchi. Jamshedpur that shows that the prosecution version regarding recovery of the victim along with the appellant is not denied. It further appears from evidence of D.W. 2 Raj Singh Garg and D.W. 3 Rohit Kumar that appellant has got intimate relation with the victim. D.W. 2 has stated specifically vide para 2 that on 21st March, 1997 he saw both of them going on a Van after leaving bicycle used by victim at a shop. D.W. 3 similarly asserted that the three letters produced by him were written by the victim and accordingly they had intimate relation. Therefore the version of the prosecution that Dipti was moving with the appellant since the evening of 21st March, 1997 till she was recovered in the night of 24th March, 1997 stands proved beyond doubts. 8. In this context the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that P.W. 3 doctor who examined the victim on 25th March has found no mark of injury on her private parts and in her opinion rape has not been committed. 8. In this context the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that P.W. 3 doctor who examined the victim on 25th March has found no mark of injury on her private parts and in her opinion rape has not been committed. It was further pointed out that the age of the victim girl was estimated between 18 to 20 years; therefore the story of prosecution should have been disbelieved. It was further pointed out that other witnesses including the father, mother and Mausa of the victim has not supported the story of rape. 9. Learned APP drew my attention towards the statement of the victim PW. 5 and asserted in view of the specific and clear statement of the victim that she was forcibly raped by the appellant on the first night in a village vide para 2 of her exam ination-in-chief. It was also pointed out that the father of the appellant has got three blank papers signed by her vide para 4 of the chief. The defence counsel pointed out that even this witness has admitted in paras 15, 16 and 17 that she did not raise alarm when she was being moved from Bhilai to village Dogargarh to Jamshedpur, however she has denied that she used to love with the appellant and she gone with him out of her own free will. 10. The I.O. of this case, as P.W. 6, has supported the prosecution version that he along with father of the girl and appellant has gone to recover them at about 12 p.m. in the night. He has been examined at length but no material has come on record that the prosecution version is incorrect. 11. With the statement of the victim along with the defence witness has came clearly on record that victim was in company with the appellant from the evening of 215 March, 1997 till night of 24th March, 1997, the fact does not require any further corroboration from other witness where she was taken to and how she was kept. It is only the victim P.W. 5 who is competent to tell about where she was taken to and how she was treated during this period. 12. P.Ws.1 and 4 are father and Mausa of the victim, they have supported the fact that since the evening of 21st March the victim was missing. It is only the victim P.W. 5 who is competent to tell about where she was taken to and how she was treated during this period. 12. P.Ws.1 and 4 are father and Mausa of the victim, they have supported the fact that since the evening of 21st March the victim was missing. They have further supported the fact that in the night of 24th March, 1997 she was recovered along with the appellant in the manner stated above. They have admitted that victim was adult but denied that she was in love with the appellant. Therefore their evidence also support the facts that Dipti has gone with the appellant and 'she was with him for more than three days. This part of the prosecution story that victim was recovered from the possession of the appellants stands proved beyond all reasonable doubts. During this period what happened only victim could say. The learned counsel for the appellant stressed before me that the version of the witnesses P.W. 5 does not require to be relied upon because she has contradicted her own version. I do not find any force in the submission. P.W. 5 has asserted in her first statement before the police that she was subjected to rape and during her cross-examination before the court her statement was that she was subjected to sexual exploitations against her wish. If a lady alleged such things her version require to be given proper importance. 13. In the present facts where she is said to be intimately close with the appellant in love with him, she could not have alleged that he raped her. Even in case she was forced to tell such things before 25th March, 1997 she could have easily resiled from her earlier statement before the court when she was examined after more than one year and eight months but she has stuck to her earlier statement. Therefore her version has to be relied upon that she was subjected to rape by the appellant learned counsel further drew my attention towards the evidence of P.W. 3 Dr. Vinit Sahay that the victim did not have any sign of rape and in her opinion she was not subjected to rape. In such circumstances, the law says that the statement of the victim deserves more credence. Vinit Sahay that the victim did not have any sign of rape and in her opinion she was not subjected to rape. In such circumstances, the law says that the statement of the victim deserves more credence. The victim having no physical injury or apparent sign of rape on 25th March, 1997 when the alleged rape was committed in the night of 21st March, 1997. This does not discredit her version. It is admitted fact on record that she was adult, in such case when there was any sexual intercourse there is faint possibility of physical injury. No lady should allege falsely particularly when she is in love with the appellant. As such I find that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubts that the appellant has committed rape upon the victim. 14. In such view of the facts, I find and hold that the judgment of the lower court holding the appellant guilty under section 366/376 of the Indian Penal Code is fit to be confirmed. Accordingly, I find that there is no merit in this appeal. 15. At this stage the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the appellant has remained in custody for five years during the trial and appeal before this Court, the sentences may be modified. It is further submitted that this appellant has faced the trial for such ten years and has been sufficiently punished. Having considered the entire facts on record, I find that ends of justice would be sufficiently served if the sentence of the appellant is modified for five years under section 376 of the I.P.C. only. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. 16. In this manner, this appeal is dismissed with modification of sentence.