Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 57 (PAT)

Meena Devi v. State Of Bihar

2010-01-14

MANDHATA SINGH

body2010
JUDGEMENT Mandhata Singh, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 7.9.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhojpur at Ara in Case No. 619 (C)/2000/TR No. 1152/2000 by which he has refused to take cognizance against opposite party No. 2 and dismissed the case under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for want of evidence. 2. In brief, opposite party No. 2, Kripa Shankar Ram, Officer-in-charge of Ekwari police station on 26.7.2000 at about 9 pm while the complainant was sleeping in her house entered after knocking the door. She was told that naxalites had taken shelter in her house and in that continuation committed rape upon her, left her house after threatening not to report the matter elsewhere. 3. After conclusion of enquiry, Sri A.K. Yadav, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhojpur, dismissed the complaint petition under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure finding no material against him (OP No. 2). By assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the impugned judgment this revision petition has been filed. 4. After going through the record I find that specific reasons are given by the learned Magistrate while dismissing the complaint petition i.e. non-examination of the victim by a doctor, non-examination of her husband while he was present in the house and taking no notice by the villagers about entering opposite party No. 2 in complainants house or coming out from her house. Reasons given by the learned Magistrate appears appropriate in the circumstances of the case that allegation was there about remaining of naxalites in the house of the complainant. Opposite party No. 2 entered her house when husband of the victim was present there. But he never came forward to make any statement for her victim wife nor he made any protest including alarm and just on the next day complaint petition was filed but no attempt was made by the complainant for her medical examination by a doctor even after filing of the case. According to the Magistrate, she ought to be examined by doctor after filing of the case and initiative should be taken on her behalf for her. Offence if really committed on 27.6.2000, further observation of the Magistrate is that in the month of summer villagers remain awakened and busy in their agricultural and domestic work. According to the Magistrate, she ought to be examined by doctor after filing of the case and initiative should be taken on her behalf for her. Offence if really committed on 27.6.2000, further observation of the Magistrate is that in the month of summer villagers remain awakened and busy in their agricultural and domestic work. Even then if none of the villagers saw the opposite party No. 2 to enter and come out from the house of the complainant also creates doubt and after accumulation of all the three circumstances followed by the allegation of remaining naxalites in her house, I find no mistake or illegality committed by the Magistrate in reaching the dismissal of the complaint petition. 5. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.