Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1381 (PAT)

Pradeep Sah @ Pradeep Kumar Sah v. State of Bihar

2013-12-05

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2013
JUDGMENT Smt. Anjana Prakash, J. The appellant has been convicted under Sections 376, 363 and 366, IPC and sentenced to RI for seven years, five years and three years respectively by the Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Begusarai in S.Tr. No. 225 of 1998 by judgment and order dated 19/20/ 21.12.2001. 2. The case of the informant, Lakshman Bhagat, PW 3 given on 26.11.1997 is that he used to live on rent along with his wife and three daughters out of whom the second daughter aged about 14 years used to study in Navyug Vidyalaya. On 20.11.1997 at about 4 P.M however when she did not return he asked his neighbours and started looking for her. It was found out that his daughter had gone to coaching on that day and that the appellant was seen near the cinema hall along with others. Hence he suspected that on account of intimate relationship between the two she had been kidnapped. 3. In his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr PC the appellant stated that the victim in fact was a consensual party and also exhibited two letters and photographs to demonstrate the relationship between them. 4. During Trial the prosecution examined six witnesses out of whom PW 1, Deep Narayan Poddar has been declared hostile. He stated that the informant had told him that his daughter had gone along with the appellant. 5. PW 2, Mohan Prasad uncle of the victim and a teacher in the coaching institute did not identify the appellant as also stated that it is possible that the victim may have gone with the appellant. 6. PW 3, Lakshman Bhagat is the informant who stated that on the date of occurrence he was residing as a tenant in the house of Deep Narayan Poddar, PW 1 on which date his daughter had gone to Navyug Vidyalaya as usual but she did not return. Then he and his family started looking for her and during inquiry it was found that his daughter had been kidnapped by the appellant. On 31.11.1997 his daughter was recovered where after she was medically examined on 2.11.1997 and her statement was recorded under Section 164, Cr PC on 3.12.1997. He further stated that his daughter had disclosed that the appellant had firstly tried to seduce her and when she did not agree to go with him then he had kidnapped her on point of pistol. He further stated that his daughter had disclosed that the appellant had firstly tried to seduce her and when she did not agree to go with him then he had kidnapped her on point of pistol. 7. PW 4, the prosecutrix has stated that on 20.11.1997 while she was on her way to school the appellant along with others was standing near the cinema hall. They restrained her and told her to follow them on the pretext of giving her ear-rings. When she rejected the offer the appellant took out a pistol and threatened her and made her unconscious by putting his handkerchief on her face. She was made to sit on a motorcycle to some distance and then taken to another place where she was locked up in a room. The appellant thereafter committed rape upon her by force and fear of death. He also got her to write some letters and took photographs. 8. PW 5 is the Doctor who examined the victim and found her age between 18 to 20 years on the date of examination. She further stated that no external or internal injury was found on her person or her private parts. 9. PW 8, the Investigating Officer stated that he examined place of occurrence which was a school near which cinema hall was situated. He on a secret information raided the house of one Orhul Devi from where he recovered the victim girl, Shakuntala Kumari on 30.11.1997 even while the accused persons ran away. He then produced the girl before the Doctor on 2.12.1997 and got her examined under Section 164, Cr PC on 3.12.1997. 10. From the prosecution case, I find that even though the occurrence is said to have taken place on 20.11.1997 the report was instituted only on 26.11.1997. Evidently it was for the reason that the parents of the girl were trying to find out her location. From the First Information Report itself it appears that there was some relationship between the appellant and the victim. It is in this background that this Court has to Judge as to whether the appellant kidnapped the victim. 11. I find that even though the victim was recovered on 30.11.1997 she was medically examined on 2.12.1997 and produced before the Magistrate four days later on 3.12.1997. It is in this background that this Court has to Judge as to whether the appellant kidnapped the victim. 11. I find that even though the victim was recovered on 30.11.1997 she was medically examined on 2.12.1997 and produced before the Magistrate four days later on 3.12.1997. Since the Investigating Officer explains that the victim girl was handed over to her parents after her medical examination in which period she was likely to be susceptible to influence so as to give an incriminating statement against the appellant and this possibility cannot be positively ruled out in the facts of the present case. What is further noteworthy is that the victim was alleged to be aged about 18-19 years i.e. not only she had attained the age of consent but it is also improbable that she could be bodily lifted in an unconscious state on a two wheeler in broad day-light. 12. The letters and the photographs which were exhibited on behalf of the appellant do not indicate that they were taken in duress. In fact she appears to be quite happy and without fear. Similarly, the letters which have been exhibited do not show that they were written on the same day and appear natural in their flow leaving no room for doubt in the mind of the Court that it was voluntarily written by the alleged victim. In these circumstances, it would be unsafe to rely upon the prosecution story and uphold the conviction of the appellant. 13. Hence, giving benefit of doubt to the appellant, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant on 19/20/21.12.2001 by the Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Begusarai in S.Tr. No. 225 of 1998 is set aside. The appellant is discharged of the liability of his bail bonds. Appeal allowed.