Back
2014 Supreme(Pat) 242
PATNA HIGH COURT
ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI. J.
Ravi Shankar Yadav - Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 598 of 2013
Decided On : February 21, 2014
Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Adv. and Dr. Bipin Chandra, for the appellant
Bipin Kumar, APP, for the State.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of consistent and corroborated evidence in cases of alleged rape and the impact of faulty investigation on the prosecution's case.
Headnote:
Rape - Appeal - Section 366, IPC, Section 376, IPC - 164, Cr PC - 18 witnesses examined - Majority did not support prosecution - Victim's conduct questioned - Faulty investigation by IO - Victim's evidence found inconsistent - Appeal allowed
Fact of the Case:
The victim alleged that she was kidnapped and raped by the appellant. The complaint was filed, and the case went to trial. The majority of witnesses did not support the prosecution's case. The victim's conduct and the investigation by the Investigating Officer were questioned.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence of the victim to be inconsistent and not corroborated. The judgment of conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The appellant was directed to be released.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the victim's evidence, the conduct of the witnesses, and the investigation conducted by the IO.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the evidence of the victim was inconsistent and not corroborated by other witnesses. The faulty investigation by the IO also raised doubts about the prosecution's case.
Final Decision: The judgment of conviction and sentence was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The appellant was directed to be released.
Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.
Appellant, Ravi Shankar Yadav, who has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 366, IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for five years, under Section 376, IPC and sentenced RI for seven years with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently vide judgment of conviction dated 3.8.2013 and sentence dated 5.8.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd East Champaran at Motihari in Sessions Trial No. 30 of 2013 has preferred instant appeal.
2. Devanti Devi (PW 16) filed complaint petition bearing No. 2785/2011 on 25.11.2011 alleging inter alia that on 15.11.2011, she along with her mother-in-law, Panapati Devi proceeded from her sasural along with her daughter aged about 1-1/2 years to Motihari for her treatment. As the evening had fallen, therefore, in stead of returning back to her sasural, she along with her mother-in-law proceeded to her naihar lying at village, Harian Chapra. As soon as, she reached near bridge located at her naihar, Ravi Shankar Yadav along with two other unknown persons carne in a car and on the point of pistol, took her away along with her daughter forcibly and carried her to a line hotel ahead Chakia where, she was kept in the hotel for whole night and was raped. On the following morning, she was taken to Patna where she was confined in a room for four consecutive days where she was again ravished. After four days, again she was brought to Narainpur near Kotwa where she was kept for three days and was ravished during aforesaid period. The accused had also threatened her not to raise alarm. In the night of 23.11.2011 appellant along with four unknown persons carried her on motorcycle from Narainpur and left at Shankar Saraiya Bazar wherefrom she had gone to her sasural and disclosed the whole event to her family members. Thereafter, she along with her husband came to Mufassil P.S. and disclosed regarding occurrence but the police not only failed to register the case but also to get her medically examined.
3. The aforesaid complaint was sent to the concerned police station for registration, investigation of the case on the basis of which Piprakothi P.S. Case No.303/2011 was registered whereupon investigation commenced and concluded by way of submission of charge-sheet leading to trial meeting with ultimate result, the subject matter of the instant appeal.
4. The defence case as is evident from mode of cross-examination as well as from statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr PC is of complete denial of the occurrence. However, neither any DW nor any sort of exhibit has been made on behalf of defence.
5. So many points have been argued on behalf of appellant while challenging the judgment impugned. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that altogether 18 witnesses have been examined including husband, mother-in-law, brother-in-law (Bhainsur), sister-in-law (gotni), however, majority of them did not support the case of the prosecution.
6. From the narration of the complaint petition itself, it is evident that occurrence of kidnapping was witnessed only by Panapati Devi who has been examined as PW 15 and the victim as PW 16. After parallel scrutiny of evidence of the aforesaid two witnesses, it is crystal clear that occurrence of kidnapping so suggested or occurrence of rape as has been flashed is nothing but only in a way to safeguard their prestige in the locality because of the fact that victim on her own had gone and from the conduct of the prosecution witnesses, it is evident that they were accustomed to face such situation, therefore, they have not taken any sort of legal recourse during the intervening period. It has also been submitted that there happens to be admitted fact that neither the victim was examined under Section 164, Cr PC nor was she ever medically examined during course of investigation.
7. It has further been submitted that when the conduct of victim is perceived, it is evident that during her examination-in-chief she
