Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1434 (PAT)

Nanhak Yadav v. State Of Bihar

2007-08-30

MADHAVENDRA SARAN

body2007
Judgment MADHAVENDRA SARAN, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.11.2003 passed by Shri Prakash Chadra Jaiswal, Additional Sessions Judge-V, Gaya in S.tr. No. 8/2002/18/ 2002 by which he convicted appellant Nan-hak Yadav and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. He was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- within two months from the date of order and in case of default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. In case of realisation of fine, Rs. 2,000/- was ordered to be paid to the State and the rest was directed to be paid to the victim girl. 2. Shortly stated the prosecution case is that in the night of 25.6.2000 informant Seema Kumari was sleeping along with her mother named Lachhia Devi and father in the room after taking supper. At about 10.30 p.m. appellant Nanhak Yadav entered into the room and repeatedly call her by name. Informant out of fear concealed herself under the cot. It is said that the appellant forcibly dragged her outside the room. Informants parents began to raise alarm but he threatened to assault them by means of bomb in case of making halla and took the informant at the hill located near the water tank. The appellant then opened her salwar and pulled her on the ground. He also opened his own clothes and thereafter forcibly committed rape on her repeatedly against her will. When the informant tried to raise halla he threatened her with dire consequences. In the meantime people arrived there making halla whereupon the accused left the scene leaving pant and shirt. It is further alleged that due to rape committed by the appellant there was acute pain in her private part and her salwar got stained with blood. The fardbeyan of the informant was recorded by the police on 25.6.2000 at 3.30 hours at Civil Line police station, Gaya on the basis of which Civil Line P.S. Case No. 166/2000 dated 25.6.2000 under Section 376 of the Penal Code was registered. It appears that the police after investigation submitted charge-sheet on the basis of which cognizance was take on 11.8.2000 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Session. After trial the appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 376 of the Penal Code. It appears that the police after investigation submitted charge-sheet on the basis of which cognizance was take on 11.8.2000 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Session. After trial the appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 376 of the Penal Code. Against the said order of conviction and sentence the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Court. 3. The defence of the appellant was total denial of the alleged occurrence and false implication of the case. 4. In order to bring home the charge the prosecution examined in all eight employments where PW 1 Vinod Kumar Singh, PW 2 Dr. Sobha Kumar Singh, PW 3 Bachan Mochi, PW 4 Umesh Singh, PW 5 Seema Kumari (informant), PW 6 Suraj Choudhary (father of the informant), PW 7 Lachhia Devi (mother of the informant) and PW 8 (Investigating Officer). 5. In further appears that out of aforesaid witnesses PWs 1, 3 and 4 became hostile and did not support the prosecution case. 6. PW 7 Lachhia Devi is the mother of the victim girl. She stated before the Court that on the alleged date of occurrence at about 10.00 p.m. she was sleeping in the house along with her husband and daughter named Seema. It appears from her evidence that she had stated before the police that appellant forcibly took away her daughter on the hill where he committed rape on her. She had also informed the police that her daughter returned back after half an hour and informed her about the rape. Her daughter also told her that her salwar and samiz got stained with blood. 7. PW 5 Seema Kumari, the victim, stated before the Court that at the time of alleged occurrence she was living in a rented house located in mohalla Mangla Gauri, Gaya. At about 10 p.m. she was in the house along with her mother and father when appellant Nanhak Yadav forcibly dragged her out of the house and took her on the hill where he committed rape on her. She was assaulted also by the appellant. According to this witness, appellant committed rape against her will. Blood started oozing from her urinary track. She started crying. Her paijama got stained with blood. After one hour she returned back home. She identified the appellant in Court room. She was assaulted also by the appellant. According to this witness, appellant committed rape against her will. Blood started oozing from her urinary track. She started crying. Her paijama got stained with blood. After one hour she returned back home. She identified the appellant in Court room. She then went to police station and gave her statement. She was medically examined by the lady doctor. She further stated that her statement was recorded before the Magistrate also. It appears from her evidence in paragraph 3 that she showed her salwar stained with semen to the police officer. 8. PW 6 Suraj Choudhary is the father of the victim girl. He also stated before the Court that about 9.00 p.m. while they were sleeping in the room after taking meal the appellant forcibly entered into the house. He caught hold Seema and took her out from the room. He chased the accused and saw his daughter coming down from the hill. She informed that she had been sexually assaulted. She was at that time wearing salwar which was stained with blood. He took her to hospital for treatment. He also stated before the Court that the appellant had intimated him. His signature is Exhibit-3 on the fardbeyan. According to this witness, the police prepared seizure list of the cloth over which his signature is Exhibit-4. He also identified the appellant in the Court room. 9. PW 2 Dr. Sobha Kumari Singh on 25.6.2000 was posted as Civil Assistant Surgeon at Lady Elgin Hospital, Gaya. On that day at about 12.00 noon she examined Seema Kumari (PW 6) and found the hymen torned and bleeding. She found that the rape has been done on the victim. She estimated the age of the victim girl as between 16-17 years. Her medical report is Exhibit-2. 10. PW 8 is the Investigating Officer of this case. He recorded the fardbeyan of the informant at the police line police station on 25.6.2000. The fardbeyan is Exhibit-3/1. He sent the seized cloth of the victim to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. He got the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164, Cr PC. The said statement is Exhibit-6. 11. He recorded the fardbeyan of the informant at the police line police station on 25.6.2000. The fardbeyan is Exhibit-3/1. He sent the seized cloth of the victim to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. He got the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164, Cr PC. The said statement is Exhibit-6. 11. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the learned Court below has failed to appreciate that the victim girl (PW 5) in clear words stated before the Court in paragraph 3 of her evidence that she did not know the appellant from before nor was acquainted with him. She named the appellant at the behest of her mother. Learned counsel thus argued that participation of appellant is doubtful. 12. I do not find any force in the argument of learned counsel. The alleged occurrence took place on 25.6.2000 during night hours. On the same night at 3.30 hours the fardbeyan of informant was recorded by the police in which she named the appellant as the person who committed the entire occurrence. Then it appears that at the request of the police, the informant was examined under Section 164, Cr PC on 27.6.2000 before Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Gaya and there also she named the appellant as the person who committed the entire occurrence including rape. PW 5 during her evidence in Court identified the appellant as the person who committed rape on her. Therefore, the participation of appellant in the present case is not doubtful. 13. Learned counsel then referred to evidence of PW 7 Lachhia Devi and submitted that she being the mother of the prosecutrix did not support the prosecution case. She also did not name the appellant as the person who committed rape on her daughter. I have seen the evidence of PW 7. It is not clear as to why this witness was declared hostile by the prosecution. On Courts question this witness stated that accused Nanhak Yadav committed immoral act with her daughter. Thus the evidence of PW 5 stands corroborated by the evidence of PWs 6 and 7. The report of Forensic Science Laboratory also supports the prosecution case as it appears from the report that during examination blood with semen was found over the salwar of the prosecutrix. The said report is Exhibit-5. Thus the evidence of PW 5 stands corroborated by the evidence of PWs 6 and 7. The report of Forensic Science Laboratory also supports the prosecution case as it appears from the report that during examination blood with semen was found over the salwar of the prosecutrix. The said report is Exhibit-5. On the basis of above oral and documentary evidence, it is established that appellant Nanhak Yadav during night hours forcibly dragged victim Seema Kumari to a nearby hill and committed rape on her. At the time of alleged occurrence, Seema Kumari was a minor girl. Her father was a beggar. After the alleged occurrence accused tried to intimidate the informants family. Why the evidence of the girl on commission of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with suspicion. The evidence of prosecution finds ample corroboration from the medical evidence. The evidence of prosecutrix appears to be reliable and trustworthy. 14. I have gone through the judgment of trial Court. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has appreciated the evidence in proper way. I do not find any infirmity in the judgment. 15. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find no merit in this appeal. The judgment and order of trial Court is hereby affirmed. 16. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.