Back
2012 Supreme(Pat) 1605
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA, J.
Surendra Rai : Appellant [in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.257 of 2000]
With
Bharat Poddar : Appellant [in with Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 262 of 2000]
Versus
State of Bihar : Respondent (in both cases)
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.257 of 2000 with Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 262 of 2000
Decided On : 19-12-2012
In CR. APP (SJ) No. 257 of 2000
For the Appellant : M/s. Ashutosh Kumar, Chandramohan Jha and Dhananjay Kumar Singh
For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar, A.P.P.
In CR. APP (SJ) No. 262 of 2000
For the Appellant : Jitendra Narain Sinha, Krishna Nandan Kumar, Rohit Kumar and Shikha Roy
For the State : Abhay Kumar, A.P.P.
The principle of 'benefit of doubt' was central to the judgment, highlighting the requirement for the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts.
Headnote:
Benefit of Doubt - Conviction under Sections 366, 323, 452 of the Indian Penal Code -
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were acquitted of the charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code due to benefit of doubt, but convicted for the offences under Sections 366, 323, and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution's case was based on the informant's allegation of being forcibly taken to a house and raped by the appellants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellants, and thus, they were entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the credibility of the informant's testimony and the evidence presented by the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be considered a minor offence in relation to Section 376, and since the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, the appellants were acquitted.
Final Decision: The judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellants were set aside, and both appeals were allowed, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.
R.K. Mishra, J.
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.257 of 2000 filed on behalf of the appellant, Surendra Rai, and Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.262 of 2000 filed on behalf of the appellant, Bharat Poddar, have been directed against the judgment of conviction and order or sentence dated 24.7.2000 passed by the court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur, in Sessions Trial No.164/50 of 1994, whereby the court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur, while acquitting the accused, Surendra Rai (appellant in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.257 of 2000) and the accused, Bharat Poddar (appellant in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.262 of 2000) for the charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code giving them the benefit of doubt, has convicted them for the offence under Sections 366, 323 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, for two years for the offence under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code and for three months for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Since both the appeals have been directed against the same judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.7.2000 passed by the court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur, in Sessions Trial No.164/50 of 1994, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. In brief, the prosecution case is that the informant, Usha Devi (P.W.3) gave her fardbeyan at the door of Surendra Rai in village-Chak Haidar, Police Station-Tajpur, District-Samastipur, to the Sub Inspector of Police, Indradeo Prasad (P.W.11), Officer Incharge of Police Station-Tajpur on 27.7.1993 at about 5.30 A.M. to the effect that in the preceding night after taking the meal she had slept in her house. At about 12 O’clock in the night, Surendra Rai, son of Lutan Rai, Pallu Rai, son of Paltan Rai and Bharat Poddar, son of Sukhdeo Poddar, all of village-Chak Haidarpur, P.S. Tajpur, District-Samastipur, came to her house and asked her to open the door using abusive language. Due to fear she opened the door of her house, then they forcibly entered into her house and catching her hand forcibly taken her to the door of the house of Surendra Rai by dragging and causing assault. Thereafter, Surendra Rai locked her in a room and committed rape on her twice. At that time, Pallu Rai and Bharat Poddar fled away from there. She has further alleged that in the preceding night her husband was not present at her house. At that time, her Nanad (sister-in-law), Veena Devi and cousin mother-in-law were present at her house, who also raised hullah but due to fear of the accused, none rushed to save her there. Her neighbours have also seen the occurrence, who would narrate the same if they are asked.
3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Usha Devi (P.W.3), Tajpur P.S. Case No.240 of 1993 was instituted against the accused, Surendra Rai, Pallu Rai and Bharar Poddar under Sections 452, 323, 376, 504 and 342/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3(X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on 27.7.1993 and after submission of the chargesheet by the police on investigation under Sections 452, 323, 376 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions for trial, where charges for the offences under Sections 376, 452 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code were explained to the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and, accordingly, the trial proceeded. In course of trial, one accused, Pallu Rai, died, hence, the trial concluded in respect to the accused, Surendra Rai and Bharat Poddar only.
4. The court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur, on consideration of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the materials available on the record, while acquitted th
