Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 918 (JHR)

Parvez Akhtar v. The State of Jharkhand

2011-09-22

R.K.MERATHIA

body2011
Judgment By Court: This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 11.09.2002 and order of sentence dated 12.09.2002 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Hazari bagh in Sessions Trial No. 154 of 2000 convicting the appellant under section 376 IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for ten years. 2. The prosecution case in short is that on 11.03.1999 at about 5.00 PM when the complainant was sweeping her house situated in front of the house of the appellant, the appellant who happens to be the cousin brother of the complainant, with intention to commit sexual assault, entered into her house and caught hold of her from behind, gagged her mouth and on the point of knife, committed rape on her. Out of fear, she did not disclose about the said incident to anyone and taking advantage of her silence, the appellant continued to ravish her for months together in spite of her resistance. When she became pregnant, her family members contacted the appellant and his father. Thereafter, a panchayati was held in which the appellant and his father agreed for solemnizing 'Nikah' of the appellant with the complainant. On 13.10.1999 the complainant gave birth to a pre-mature baby. Thereafter, again panchayati was held in which the appellant agreed to perform 'Nikah' with the complainant. The date of 'Nikah' was fixed for 5.12.1999 and Mehar was also fixed as such and in token of the agreement, the appellant and the complainant put their respective signatures on the said punchnama in presence of the witnesses. The newly born baby died after ten days. After the death of the baby, the appellant denied to perform 'Nikah' with the complainant. Thereafter, this case was instituted. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds, whereas the learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment. 4. After hearing the parties and going through the records carefully, it appears that the learned trial court convicted the appellant intere - alia mainly on the evidence of the victim (PW-9). Learned trial court held that the victim girl was below 16 years of age at the relevant time. Though, according to the prosecution case, the complainant studied in school, but it did not produce any documentary evidence in proof of her age. Learned trial court held that the victim girl was below 16 years of age at the relevant time. Though, according to the prosecution case, the complainant studied in school, but it did not produce any documentary evidence in proof of her age. The complainant disclosed her age as 17 years before the court and the court also assessed her age to be 17 years and on that basis, the court inter-alia held that she was below 16 years of age at the time of occurrence. 5. It further appears that after the complainant became pregnant, she disclosed about the alleged sexual exploitation and then panchayati was held in which the appellant agreed to marry the complainant. It is alleged that after the death of the child born from the complainant, the appellant refused to marry her. 6. In these circumstances, in my opinion, the appellant deserves the benefit of doubt as the prosecution has not fully proved it's case beyond all reasonable doubts. 7. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as passed by the trial court against the appellant under section 376 IPC, is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges. The appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds.