Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.
Subodh Kumar, S/o Late Suresh Prasad Choudhary – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.1127 of 2017
Decided On : 27-06-2018
Section 376 - Rape - I.P.C. - [Section 376 of the I.P.C.] - The court found the appellant guilty of rape under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for ten years. The victim, a neighbor and distant relative of the appellant, alleged that he raped her, promised to marry her, and continued physical intimacy, resulting in pregnancy. The appellant denied the allegations, claiming the victim was of easy virtue and had consensual relationships with others. The court analyzed the evidence, including witness testimonies and the victim's statement, and considered legal precedents on consent and false promise of marriage. The court upheld the conviction, emphasizing the victim's testimony, the absence of a defense of consent by the appellant, and the lack of medical evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The victim, a neighbor and distant relative of the appellant, alleged that he raped her, promised to marry her, and continued physical intimacy, resulting in pregnancy. The appellant denied the allegations, claiming the victim was of easy virtue and had consensual relationships with others. The prosecution presented witness testimonies and the victim's statement to support the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty of rape under Section 376 of the I.P.C. based on the victim's testimony, absence of a defense of consent by the appellant, and lack of medical evidence. The court considered legal precedents on consent and false promise of marriage, emphasizing the victim's testimony and the absence of a defense of consent by the appellant.
Issues: The issues included the credibility of the victim's testimony, the absence of a defense of consent by the appellant, and the lack of medical evidence to corroborate the rape allegation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the victim's testimony, the absence of a defense of consent by the appellant, and the lack of medical evidence to uphold the conviction under Section 376 of the I.P.C.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the appellant's conviction for rape under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and upheld the sentence of R.I. for ten years.
Vide judgment of conviction dated 28.02.2017, appellant Subodh Kumar has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years as well as to pay fine appertaining to Rs.50,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo R.I. for two years, additionally, with a further direction that the period having undergone during course of trial would be subject to set off in accordance with Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. vide order of sentence dated 03.03.2017 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in Sessions Trial No.50 of 2015.
2. Name withheld victim/informant (PW-5) filed Complaint Petition No.1842 of 2013 on 07.11.2013, showing the date of occurrence from 15.02.2013 to 03.11.2013, having an allegation that accused Subodh Kumar happens to be her neighbour as well as distant relative on account thereof, are on visiting term. It has further been disclosed that on 15.02.2013, the family members of the informant had gone to participate in Saraswati Puja, whereupon she was alone. At about 1.00 p.m. accused Subodh Kumar came at her house, inquired about the other family members and then, having been divulged by the informant that they all have gone to participate in Saraswati Puja, he indulged in gossiping with her. Later on, she came inside her house leaving him at her door, who followed her and after closing the door, took control over her, gagged her mouth and then, committed rape. Thereafter, she began to weep, whereupon Subodh consoled her and said that he will marry. He further instructed not to disclose to anybody on account thereof, she kept mum. Subsequently thereof, on the pretext of promise of marriage, Subodh continued with physical intimacy as a result of which, she became pregnant. She divulged the fact to Subodh and requested him to marry, but he began to push the matter ahead on one pretext or the other, whereupon she disclosed the event to her parents. On 31.10.2013, her father convened a Panchayati wherein it was resolved that accused should marry with her on the same day and the venue was fixed at Shyama Temple, Darbhanga where all her family members arrived, but neither Subodh nor any of his family members came. Then thereafter, she got herself examined by a doctor on 01.11.2013, who found her pregnancy to be of eight months. It has also been divulged that on 03.11.2013, her family members had gone to the place of accused and requested to marry, which was not only turned down rather her family members were also assaulted.
3. The aforesaid complaint petition was referred to local police for registration and investigation of the case as provided under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, University P.S. Case No.219 of 2013 was registered, investigated, followed with submission of charge-sheet. Accordingly, trial commenced and concluded whereunder other co-accused were acquitted while appellant has been convicted and sentenced for in a manner as indicated hereinabove, subject matter of instant appeal.
4. Defence case, as is evident from mode of cross-examination as well as statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is that of complete denial. It has further been pleaded that the victim happens to be lady of easy virtue, might have indulged in sexual activity with others, resulting pregnancy, whereupon insisted to marry and on refusal by the accused got him involved in the instant case by way of false and frivolous allegation. However, nothing has been adduced in defence.
5. Prosecution, in order to support its case, had examined altogether nine PWs, who are PW-1, Sanjay Prasad Sah, PW-2, Jai Narayan Sah, PW-3, Ranju Devi, PW-4, Pradeep Kumar, PW-5, victim herself, PW-6, Manju Devi, PW-7, Lila Devi, PW-8, Swami Nath Pandey and PW-9, Umesh Kumar Pandey. Prosecution had also exhibited, Exhibit-1, signature of PW-2 over statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., Exhibit-2, signature of PW-3 over statement recorded under Sectio
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
