Back
1997 Supreme(Pat) 489
PATNA HIGH COURT
Loknath Prasad, J.
Baijnath Ganjhu @ Bajo Ganjhu
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 1991 ;
Decided On : JULY 14, 1997
The testimony of the victim and the eye-witnesses, as well as the medical evidence, was sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
RAPE - SECTION 376 IPC - EVIDENCE - APPRECIATION OF - CORROBORATION - DELAY IN LODGING FIR - EXPLANATION - RELIABILITY OF TESTIMONY OF VICTIM AND EYE-WITNESSES - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - SUFFICIENCY - CONVICTION - UPHELD.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Latehar. The prosecution alleged that the appellant had raped the victim, Niraso Devi, in the afternoon of 6-4-89 near Matwa Tongri while she was collecting Mahua flowers with her mother-in-law and sister-in-law. The appellant denied the allegations and claimed that he was falsely implicated at the instance of the local Mukhiya.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court relied on the testimony of the victim, her mother-in-law, and sister-in-law, who had all consistently stated that they had seen the appellant apprehending the victim and committing rape on her. The court also relied on the medical evidence, which showed that the victim had sustained injuries consistent with rape. The court rejected the appellant's defense of false implication, finding that there was no evidence to support this claim.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the delay in lodging the FIR was fatal to the prosecution case. 3. Whether the testimony of the victim and the eye-witnesses was reliable. 4. Whether the medical evidence was sufficient to prove rape.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The court relied on the consistent testimony of the victim and the eye-witnesses, as well as the medical evidence, which showed that the victim had sustained injuries consistent with rape. 2. The court held that the delay in lodging the FIR was not fatal to the prosecution case. The court noted that the victim had a reasonable explanation for the delay, as she had to travel a long distance to the police station and had to wait for her husband to return from work before she could lodge the FIR. 3. The court held that the testimony of the victim and the eye-witnesses was reliable. The court noted that the witnesses had no motive to lie and that their testimony was consistent with the other evidence in the case. 4. The court held that the medical evidence was sufficient to prove rape. The court noted that the victim had sustained injuries consistent with rape and that the doctor had found no evidence of consent.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant.
Loknath Prasad, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction recorded by Assistant Sessions Judge, Latehar vide his judgment dated 27.11.90 in ST. No. 268/89 through which the sole appellant was found guilty under Sec. 376 of the I.P.C and he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 8 years.
2. The prosecution case in short is that on 6-4-89 the victim lady Niraso Devi along with her cousin mother-in-law, Geeta Devi, Sister-in-law Bifia Devi and Munia Kumari had gone to collect Mahua flower and at about 1.30 P.M. or so they reached Matwa Tongri and they were collecting Mahua flower under the Mahua tree belonging to one Sibu Mahto. At that very time this appellant came running and began to abuse the victim lady and others then out of fear mother-in-law and the sister-in-law of the informant escaped towards Eastern side whereas the informant escaped towards western side. It has been allowed that while the informant was escaping her sari got entangled with Putush bushes and she had fallen on the ground and the moment she got up the appellant appeared there and caught hold of her and also thrown on the ground. It has also been alleged that inspite of protest and raising of alarm the appellant forcibly committed rape. After commission of rape when the appellant escaped away then the victim lady got up and come to her residential house in the village and narrated the entire incident to her relation but at that time her husband who was doing work of labourer was not present and he came in the evening and it was late so on the next day he want to the P.S. with her husband and relation and lodge the F.L.R. at 3 P.M. and on that basis a case under Sec. 376 of the I.P.C. was instituted as against the appellant.
3. The appellant claimed himself innocent and denied the to have committed rape as alleged by the prosecution and he set up a defence version in the court below that at the instance of local Mukhiya to whom he got enmity he had been falsely implicated. However, the trial court believing the prosecution story found the sole appellant guilty under Sec. 376 of I.PC and convicted and sentenced him in the manner indicated above. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of conviction the appellant preferred this appeal and has challenged finding of the court below on various grounds
4. According to prosecution case the alleged occurrence took place in the after-noon of 4-6-89 near Matwa Tongri i.e. a hilly place when the victim lady, P.W 2 Niraso Devi along with her mother-in-law and sister-in-law i.e .P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 had gone there for collecting Mahua flower. The informant (P.W 2) the victim lady is the most competent witness. It is the evidence of P W 2 Niraso Devi who is a married lady aged about 22 years that on Thursday about a year ago i.e. on the date of occurrence she along with her mother-in-law, Geeta Devi and two sister-in-laws Bifia and Munia had gone to collect Mahua flower and at about 1 P.M. or so they reached Matwa Tongri and collecting Mahua flower. It is her evidence that at that time the appellant to whom she identified also in the court came running and was abusing them so out of fear they all began to escape and her in-laws escaped towards eastern side whereas she escaped towards Southern side but on the way her Sari got entangled in throny bushes i.e. Putush and she remained busy in removing throny bushes. In the mean time the appellant came and apprehended her and them forcibly committed rape and after commission of rape escaped away and in that process due to resistence she also sustained injury and her bangles also broken in that very place. This witness has further stated at that at some distance she met her in-laws i.e. P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 and also narrated the entire incident to them. On the next day this witness had gone to P.S. along with her husband and other relations and lodged the F.I.R. at about 3 P.M. i.e. Ext. 1. The victim lady has also stated that after investigation of t
