Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 981 (PAT)

Devendra Pandit @ Dhibu Pandit v. State of Bihar

2012-07-17

SHEEMA ALI KHAN

body2012
SHEEMA ALI KHAN, J.:–This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 21st August, 2000 and the order of sentence dated 29th August, 2000 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Banka in Sessions Trial No. 168 of 1988 whereby the Trial Court has found and held the appellant guilty for the offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Akli Devi, wife of Sargun Kapri left her house to go to visit her parents, who live in Bounsi, which is about 5 kms. from Banka. She says that she went to Banka Bus Stand where she took a bus which apparently took her to Bhagalpur. Thereafter, she returned by a train and got off at Panjwara Station. It is stated by her that the appellant told her to stay in his house during the night and that he would take her to her father’s house on the next day. It would appear that apart from the appellant, there was another person accompanying the appellant. It is alleged that during the night, the appellant committed rape. Thereafter, she began to cry and raised her voice. On hearing her voice, the other person who was accompanying the informant, raised a hue and cry. The villagers gathered at the place of occurrence, amongst them, were Suresh Yadav and Rajendra Yadav. 3. During the trial, out of five prosecution witnesses, all except the prosecutrix who was examined as PW 1, have been declared to be hostile as none of the villagers who were supposedly present soon after the occurrence have supported the case of the informant. 4. The Investigating Officer of this case and the doctor who examined the prosecutrix have not been examined by the prosecution. 5. Under these circumstances, this Court has to examine as to whether PW 1 Akli Devi has been able to prove her case as made out by her in the First Information Report. According to her own statement in the examination-in-chief, she has stated that instead of taking a bus to go to Bounsi, she took a bus for Bhagalpur and then returned back from Bhagalpur the same evening. In her story, she has introduced the story that the appellant and one unknown stranger met her in the train. According to her own statement in the examination-in-chief, she has stated that instead of taking a bus to go to Bounsi, she took a bus for Bhagalpur and then returned back from Bhagalpur the same evening. In her story, she has introduced the story that the appellant and one unknown stranger met her in the train. It is said that the appellant persuaded this witness to disembark at his village and thereafter, committed the act of rape. In the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that there is a direct bus and a direct train to Bounsi from Banka and that she had travelled on this route at least four times on previous occasions when she went to visit her parents. In fact, she says that she used to visit her parents once a year. She has admitted that she has been married 12 years ago and that she has no children and her In-laws do not treat her well and had sent her to her parents’ house to bring the usufructs of the land, which had been gifted to her at the time of her wedding. She also admits that since this occurrence had taken place, her husband had abandoned her. 6. The story narrated by the appellant that instead of going to Bousni, she went to Bhagalpur and after staying at Bhagalpur for an hour, she took a train which passes through Bounsi, but she choose to disembark at Panjwara Road Station is farfetched and unbelievable. 7. It is true that the statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient in most cases to warrant conviction, however, the evidence of the prosecutrix should be such as to inspire confidence in the minds of the Court. The non-examination of the Investigating Officer who could have proved the facts surrounding the occurrence, has caused great prejudice to the appellant in the facts of this case. The entire narration of the occurrence appears to be a cooked up story. The lady in question was married for 12 years and therefore, it is a little difficult to believe that she could have been swayed and persuaded to spend the night in the house of a man she had met for the first time in the train. The entire narration of the occurrence appears to be a cooked up story. The lady in question was married for 12 years and therefore, it is a little difficult to believe that she could have been swayed and persuaded to spend the night in the house of a man she had met for the first time in the train. The lady had travelled on the same route on more than 4 occasions, all by herself, and as such the case made out by her that she had taken a wrong bus and subsequently got off a station before the station which would reach her to her home town is unbelievable to say the least. 8. In the circumstances, this Court finds that that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges levelled against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant is accordingly acquitted of the charges levelled against him. The appellant is also discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds furnished earlier in this case. 9. In the result, this appeal is allowed.