Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 592 (JHR)

Sanjay Yadav v. The State of Jharkhand

2011-07-05

JAYA ROY

body2011
Order Jaya Roy, J.-The appellant has filed the instant Criminal Appeal for setting aside the judgment dated 11.09.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Godda, whereby the trial court has convicted the appellant namely Sanjay Yadav under Section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, he will further undergo R.I. for six months for the offence committed by him under Section 376 I.P.C. 2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the informant, namely Kanchan Devi (victim lady) has given a written report to the Officer In-charge, alleging therein that on 21.3.2006, at about 11:30 A.M., the informant along with her mother-in-law namely Bano Devi and her sister-in-law (Gotni) namely Manorama Devi had gone to Jagatpur Bahiyar to lift bundles of Khesari crops and while she was returning back to her home alone, along with the bundles of Kherasi crops, near the Maize Field, the accused appellant Sanjay Yadav who was cutting grass suddenly came from the back and snatched the bundles of Khesari crops carried by her and put on a Gamchha in the neck of the victim lady and dragged her on the maize field, upon which she tried to raise alarm, but she was put under threat of weapon-‘Khurpi’, thereafter, the accused-appellant forcibly took her in the Maize Field and used criminal force and wrapped a Gamchha on her eyes and pushed her on the ground and forcibly committed rape on her, and thereafter, he fled-away. The victim- informant returned back to her home and narrated the entire occurrence to her mother-in-law and her sister-in-law (Gotni). As her husband was not in the house, so she could not file the written statement in the police station on the same day. On the basis of the aforesaid written report of the informant, the case has been registered under Section 376 I.P.C. against the accused-appellant Sanjay Yadav i.e. Pathergama (Basantrai) P.S. Case No.39 of 2006. After the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted under Section 376 I.P.C. against the appellant and in due course, the case was committed to the court of Sessions. On the basis of the aforesaid written report of the informant, the case has been registered under Section 376 I.P.C. against the accused-appellant Sanjay Yadav i.e. Pathergama (Basantrai) P.S. Case No.39 of 2006. After the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted under Section 376 I.P.C. against the appellant and in due course, the case was committed to the court of Sessions. 3.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses, and they are- P.W.-1, Kanchan Devi, the informant of this case; P.W.-2, Sargun Pandit; P.W.-3, Masomat Bano Devi, mother –in-law of the victim-informant; P.W.-4, Manorama Devi, sister-in-law (Gotni) of the informant; P.W.-5, Gulabi Pandit; P.W.-6, Dr. Bandevi Jha and P.W.-7, Devendra Paswan, Investigating Officer of this case. 4.Besides the ocular evidence, the prosecution has adduced several documentary evidence, and they are as follows: Ext.-1- Written Report Ext.-2- Medical report of Kanchan Devi (Victim) Ext.-3- Endorsement on the written report Ext.-3/1- Signature of Chandramani Bharti on the written report Ext.-3/2- Signature of Chandramani Bharti on the formal F.I.R. Ext.-4- Requisition for sending the victim for medical test. 5. Defence case of the accused appellant is that he has been falsely implicated in this case and in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C., he denied all the allegations leveled against him. 6. The counsel for the appellant submits that though the alleged occurrence is of 11:30 Hours, but there is not a single eye-witness of the said occurrence. The victim lady, the informant, is the only witness of the alleged occurrence. It is further contended that the family of the victim lady and the accused –appellant are in inimical terms and for that the informant-party has falsely implicated the accused appellant. It is also contended that the P.W.-3, namely Bano Devi, who is the mother-in-law of the informant, she admitted in her cross-examination that she has stated the things which has been disclosed by her daughter-in-law to her. She has further stated in her examination that her daughter-in-law used to go to Bahiar and the appellant-Sanjay Yadav used to cut crops inside the said Maize field which belongs to other. She has further stated that she knew Sanjay Yadav from very beginning because he used to come to her field also. Thus, it is very clear that the accused appellant is known to the informant’s family from before. 7. She has further stated that she knew Sanjay Yadav from very beginning because he used to come to her field also. Thus, it is very clear that the accused appellant is known to the informant’s family from before. 7. The counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the Medical Report of the doctor shows that there is no external or internal injury on any part of the body of the victim. Furthermore, the doctor has opined in her evidence - “in my opinion, no definite opinion could be reached at”. Therefore, the trial court has not taken judicial notice of the Medical evidence submitted by the doctor, who has very specifically stated that she did not find any type of external or internal injury, even regarding the rape, she has not given any definite opinion. 8. The counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the Investigating Officer though inspected the place of occurrence, could not find the under garments of the victim lady, even the Maize crops which were damaged according to him, were not seized by him, even those Maize crops which were trampled, were also not seized by him. He did not examine the land owner namely Babuji Marandi or Shanker Yadav, who were said to have grown the crops at the place of occurrence. 9. The counsel for the appellant has further contended that even the husband of the informant lady has not been examined by the prosecution. Suggestion has also been put to the victim lady regarding the dispute between her husband and the accused Sanjay Yadav over cutting the crops which resulted in the present case brought by the victim lady, but, she denied the same. Lastly, the counsel for the appellant submits that the entire allegation is based on the statement of the victim lady when the husband and the victim lady and the appellant are in inimical terms, there is every chance of false implication. There is a delay of four days in lodging the F.I.R. for which the prosecution has not given any cogent reason. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is entitled for the benefit of doubt. 10. No doubt, there is no eye-witness of this case and the informant, the victim lady is the only witness and practically on the basis of her evidence, the appellant has been convicted. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is entitled for the benefit of doubt. 10. No doubt, there is no eye-witness of this case and the informant, the victim lady is the only witness and practically on the basis of her evidence, the appellant has been convicted. Therefore, her evidence should be scrutinized very carefully. From the evidence of the P.W.-1, the victim lady, I find that she has very specifically proved the prosecution case and stands firm even in her cross-examination. In cross-examination, she has admitted that she knew the accused Sanjay Yadav for the last 2-3 years. She has stated that at the place of occurrence, there was Maize field, and the accused Sanjay Yadav was cutting the grass on the maize field and dragged her in the maize field, he committed rape upon her under threat. After committing rape, the appellant fled-away. Then, she returned to her house immediately and informed her mother-in-law P.W.-3 and her sister-in-law (Gotni) P.W.-4, which has also been corroborated by the evidence of the said witnesses. 11. Regarding the delay, the P.W.-1, the informant, has stated in her written report that as because her husband was out of station on the date of occurrence and he returned after 3-4 days to the house, thereafter, she along with her husband went to the Police Station for lodging the F.I.R.. Therefore, I find that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. has been reasonably explained. 12. Now, I like to take up the Medical evidence. The Doctor, P.W.-6 has stated that she examined the victim lady on 25.3.2006 at 11:05 A.M. i.e. on the date of lodging the F.I.R. as the F.I.R. has been lodged on 25.3.2006 at about 10:30 A.M., thus, the Doctor has examined the victim lady after four days of the occurrence. The Doctor has opined that in her opinion, no definite opinion could be reached at. Admittedly, the lady is married one, and she has been examined after four days of the occurrence, it is very possibly that no definite opinion can be given regarding the rape. The Doctor has opined that in her opinion, no definite opinion could be reached at. Admittedly, the lady is married one, and she has been examined after four days of the occurrence, it is very possibly that no definite opinion can be given regarding the rape. As it is submitted by the counsel of the appellant that the Doctor has not found even any external or internal injury, it has come in the evidence of the victim lady that she was taken by the appellant under threat and the appellant has committed rape on her under the threat. Furthermore, she was dragged by putting Gamcha on her neck to the Maize field where the crops were standing, therefore, she might not have received any such injury which can stand for four days when the Doctor has examined her. 13. I find from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, P.W.-7 that when he investigated the place of occurrence, he has found that the Maize crops were damaged and trampled, though could not be seized by him. 14. After going through the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, I find that all the witnesses have supported the prosecution case and corroborated the evidence of the victim lady. 15. While evaluating the evidence, the courts must remain conscious to the fact that in a case of rape no self –respecting women would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour, such as involving the commission of rape only due to some enmity. Not only that the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in a catena of decisions to the extent that in cases involving sexual molestation even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not weigh much, unless the discrepancies are such of the fatal nature, which can throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The inherent bashfulness of the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are the factors which the court should not overlook. In our society, as in India, a girl/lady would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incidence which is likely to reflect upon her chastity had occurred, she being conscious of the danger of being ostracized by the society or being looked down upon by the society. In our society, as in India, a girl/lady would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incidence which is likely to reflect upon her chastity had occurred, she being conscious of the danger of being ostracized by the society or being looked down upon by the society. This is the fact for which in the present case the victim lady waited for coming of her husband and after his consent went to the Police Station for lodging the F.I.R. after four days of the incidence. 16. Considering the evidence and the materials on record as discussed above, I do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.