Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 446 (PAT)

Ramashis Paswan v. State of Bihar

2008-03-03

body2008
S.K. SHARMA, J.:- The appellants have filed this appeal from the Central Jail, Muzaffarpur against their order of conviction under sections 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code and order of sentence for seven years which was passed by the Sessions Judge, Darbhanga on 18.9.1993 and 21.9.1993 respectively in Sessions Trial No. 12 of 1993. 2. The prosecution case relates to an occurrence dated 28.6.1992 at about 10 AM. The prosecutrix Smt. Shushila (PW 6) was sewing Marua in her field. At that time Ramashis Paswan and Bhikhari Paswan having revolvers went to her and forcibly carried her to an orchard and they committed rape one after another. On her hulla witnesses arrived and saw the occurrence and accused persons fled away. At the time of fleeing the accused persons namely, the appellants threatened her that if she will approach any police station or will file any case she would be done away. On account of alleged rape PW 6 got severed pain and injuries so there was delay in lodging the case. She filed a complaint case which was forwarded to the Officer-in-Charge, Bahadurpur Police Station where the formal F.I.R (Ext-1) was registered. After investigation the police found the case to be true and submitted charge sheet against both the appellants under sections 376, 341, 342, 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions. Charges were explained to both the accused persons, they pleaded their innocence and preferred to face trial. 3. The defence of the accused persons was of false implication at the behest of Suraj Narain Misser as the appellants have refused to work in his field. 4. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses. They are PW 1 Rameshwar Ram, PW 2 Sone Ram, PW 3 Mahdendra Ram, PW 4 Suraj Ram, PW 5 Nirmala Devi, PW 6 the informant and prosecutrix Shushila Devi, PW 7 B. Manjhi the I.O., PW 8 Dr. Akhauri Rabindra Kishore who examined PW 6 and PW 9 Jugeshwar Thakur a formal witness who has proved the complaint petition which was marked as Ext-3 before the trial Court. 5. The most important witness is the prosecutrix. Akhauri Rabindra Kishore who examined PW 6 and PW 9 Jugeshwar Thakur a formal witness who has proved the complaint petition which was marked as Ext-3 before the trial Court. 5. The most important witness is the prosecutrix. She in her evidence has stated that at about 9-10 AM while she was sewing Marua in her field than the accused persons came, offered her Rupees 50, and asked her to accompany them to a ditch. When she refused then the accused Ramashis Paswan pointed out his revolver and on threat she was carried away. Thereafter, both the accused persons raped her one by one. While her agony was continuing then Nirmala Oevi (PW 5) arrived and others namely, Rameshwar Ram (PW 1), Sone Ram (PW 2), Mahendra Ram (PW 3) and Suraj Ram (PW 4) also came. The accused persons escaped and at the time of escaping they threatened her that no case would be lodged. 6. PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 are all the witnesses who have been brought by the prosecution to prove the fact that while the rape was being committed then they came on hearing noise and they saw the occurrence. These witnesses have deposed if the court that after hearing the noise they came and saw that the appellants were committing rape upon PW 6. Though they have cross examined in length but they have remained intact in their evidence that they have seen the appellants committing rape. 7. PW 8 has examined PW 6 but has not found any suspicious stain, foreign hair or injury, bruises or abrasion. 8. It, has been submitted by Prabhat Kumar Amicus Curiae appointed on behalf of the appellant to assist the court that nonsupport of the injury goes to show that the no rape was committed and the appellants have falsely been implicated. It has also been submitted that the I.O. has also not found any thing which could suggest that the occurrence has occurred. 9. It has also been submitted that the I.O. has also not found any thing which could suggest that the occurrence has occurred. 9. Learned APP submitted that the evidence of the prosecutrix is to be believed as she had no motive at all to implicate the appellants though only suggestion has been given that the appellants have been implicated at the behest of another person, namely, Suraj Misser but no such suggestion was given to the witnesses nor any documents have been proved to show that the implication was at the behest of another person. So it has been submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 10. In this case the evidence of the prosecutrix is of vital importance. She in her evidence has stated that at about 9-10 AM on the date of occurrence while she was sewing Marua in the field then the appellants came, dragged her towards the ditch and committed rape on her and on cry witnesses came. Those witnesses have also supported the fact that on the' date and time of occurrence they went on hearing noise and saw the appellants committing rape. At the time of escaping the appellants have threatened that no case ould be lodged. 11. The defence has examined one witness who is the DW 1 Laxmi Paswan who has stated that during past two years the accused persons have not misbehaved with the prosecutrix and the prosecution witnesses Suraj Ram, Sone Ram, Rameshwar Ram and Mahendra Ram are father-in-law of the prosecutrix in relation. 12. It is hard to believe that a lady having rural background will come to court and make such false allegation by which she will allege that any person has committed rape with her. Victim of rape comes to the court in utter agony. There appears no such motive of false implication. So it can be believed that the prosecution was able to prove its case beyond all resonable doubt and the impugned judgment of conviction needs no interference. 13. It appears that this appeal has been admitted on 9.2.1994 and on that date the appellants were in custody. There is no order that the appellants have been admitted to bail by this Court. So it appears that the appellants have already undergone the sentence awarded to them. 14. 13. It appears that this appeal has been admitted on 9.2.1994 and on that date the appellants were in custody. There is no order that the appellants have been admitted to bail by this Court. So it appears that the appellants have already undergone the sentence awarded to them. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts I am of the view that the this appeal has no merit. Accordingly, it is dismissed. 15. Let a copy of this judgment be handed over to Mr. Prabhat Kumar who has been appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the court so that he will get his remuneration according to the provisions.