Back
2003 Supreme(Pat) 1019
PATNA HIGH COURT
Indu Prabha Singh, J.
Rangila Choudhary
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Appeal No. 506 of 2002 ;
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
In cases of rape, conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the victim, and the victim's age and consent are crucial factors in determining the offense.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Kidnapping and Rape - Secs. 366A, 376 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Secs. 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deal with kidnapping and rape. The court emphasized that in cases of rape, conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the victim, and highlighted the importance of the victim's consent and age in determining the offense.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Secs. 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for kidnapping and rape of a minor girl. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and others kidnapped the victim with the intent to sell her, remarry her, or force her into illicit intercourse.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty based on the testimony of the victim and medical evidence indicating her age and habituation to sexual activity. The court emphasized that in cases of rape, conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the victim.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the victim's testimony, the role of the Investigating Officer, and the contradictions in witness depositions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in cases of rape, the victim's testimony can be sufficient for conviction, and the non-examination of the Investigating Officer did not prejudice the defense. The court also considered the victim's age and consent in determining the offense.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's sentence was reduced to the period already undergone in custody.
Indu Prabha Singh, J.
1. The sole appellant has been Convicted u/s. 366 (A) and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years with a fine of Rs. 500.00 and further sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with a fine of Rs. 500/ for the offence u/s. 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 . However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case, in short is that on 16-10-1998 Marachhi Devi, the daughter of the informant, was married with one Pahari Choudhary. It has been further alleged that on 10-10-1998 the appellants/Rangila, Choudhary, Hiram Choudhary and Nagendra Choudhary, kidnapped his daughter who was aged about 13 years. It has further been alleged that while she was taken by the accused persons she took away a box containing ornaments, clothes and cash worth Rs. 2000.00 . According to the report his daughter was minor and as such she had no maturity of understanding of good or bad. She was kidnapped for selling her or to remarry or to force her to do any illicit inter course. His wife Sharda Devi, had also informed that the accused Rangila Choudhary had come to her house some time before the kidnapping and talked to her daughter and enticed away her On the written report of the informant the case was registered under the aforesaid sections and after completion of the investigation charge-sheet was submitted against three accused and on the basis of the charge-sheet cognizance was taken. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The trial ultimately culminated in the conviction and sentence as discussed above.
3. The appellant pleaded not guilty, as he has committed no offence.
4. The prosecution examined altogether nine witnesses to substantive the charges against the appellant, PW1, Yogendra Choudhary, PW2, Bindeshwari Choudhary, PW 3, Harihar Mahto and PW 4, Shambhu Choudhary, have been declared hostile. PW 5, Sharda Devi is the mother of the victim girl. PW 6, Govinda Choudhary is the father of the victim PW7 is Marachhi Devi is the victim, PW 8, Lal Babu Prasad, is a formal witnesses who has proved the formal First Information Report (Ext. 1). PW 9, is Dr. Jasbir Sharan who has examined the victim girl. PW 6 is the informant, the father of the victim, who has fully supported the case of the prosecution. According to him the accused, Rangila Choudhary, Nagendra Choudhary and Hirman Choudhary had kidnapped his daughter who was aged about 13 years at that time. According to him her daughter was minor and as such she was not able to understand, good or bad and she was kidnapped by the accused persons with an intent to sell her or to remarry her or to force to do illicit sex. According to him he came to know about kidnapping of his daughter through his wife and villagers. They told that accused Rangila Choudhary, Hirman Choudhary had come to his house and he was seen him talking with her daughter. Thereafter, she was traceless. After hectic search when the victim could not be traced out he gave a fardbeyan on the basis of which the FIR was drawn up.
5. PW 7 Marachhi Devi the victim girl, has also supported the case of the prosecution in her deposition as well as the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was marked as Ext. 3 and is available on the record. According to her she was married with one Pahari Choudhary. On being deserted by her husband, Pahari Choudhary, again she was married with one Lalu Choudhary. She was stated that her father had lodged the FIR. According to her on the date of the occurrence accused Rangila Choudhary came to her house and asked her that her husband, Pahari Choudhary had called her. Thereafter, she alongwith her clothes and ornaments accompanied the accused, Rangila Choudhary but she did not find her husband there. She saw the other co-accused persons, Hirawan Choudhary and Nagendra Choudhary. Thereafter, she was taken to Sugauli and there she did not m
