Back
2020 Supreme(Pat) 411
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Birendra Kumar, J.
Lalo Sharma - Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 228 of 2015, 222 of 2015
Decided On : 10-11-2020
Anant Kumar, Advocate, Sanjay Kumar, Advocate, S.A. Ahmad, Advocate, Binod Bihari Singh, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on consistent and trustworthy evidence, corroborated by medical evidence, to convict the appellant Lalo Sharma under Section 376 IPC, and the consideration of discrepancies in age determination to reduce the appellant's sentence.
Headnote:
Miscarriage - Criminal Law - Section 376 IPC, Section 312 IPC - The judgment discusses the conviction of the appellants under Section 376 IPC and Section 312 IPC. The court found the appellant Lalo Sharma guilty under Section 376 IPC for the offence of rape and acquitted both the appellants of the charge under Section 312 IPC due to lack of evidence. The court also reduced the sentence of the appellant Lalo Sharma based on age determination discrepancies.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for the offences of rape and causing miscarriage to a woman. The victim, a minor, was allegedly raped and impregnated by the appellants. The appellants challenged the conviction on the grounds of lack of evidence and discrepancies in age determination.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant Lalo Sharma guilty of the offence of rape under Section 376 IPC based on consistent and trustworthy evidence of the victim, corroborated by medical evidence. The court acquitted both the appellants of the charge under Section 312 IPC due to lack of evidence. The court also reduced the sentence of the appellant Lalo Sharma based on discrepancies in age determination.
Issues: The issues involved the conviction of the appellants under Section 376 IPC and Section 312 IPC, as well as the age determination of the appellant Lalo Sharma.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on consistent and trustworthy evidence of the victim, corroborated by medical evidence, to convict the appellant Lalo Sharma under Section 376 IPC. The court acquitted both the appellants of the charge under Section 312 IPC due to lack of evidence. The court also considered discrepancies in age determination to reduce the sentence of the appellant Lalo Sharma.
Final Decision: The appeal of the appellant Vijay Sharma was allowed, and the appeal of the appellant Lalo Sharma was partly allowed and partly dismissed. The court acquitted both the appellants of the charge under Section 312 IPC, and the sentence of the appellant Lalo Sharma was reduced based on age determination discrepancies.
JUDGMENT
Birendra Kumar, J. - Both the appeals arise out of the same judgment of conviction and order of sentence, hence both were heard together and are being disposed off by this common judgment.
2. Both the appellants Lalo Sharma and Vijay Sharma faced trial in Sessions Trial No. 26(A) of 2013 before learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Madhepura. The trial arose out of Udakishunganj P.S. Case No. 92 of 2012, registered in pursuance of the order passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, whereby Complaint Case No. 421 of 2012 brought by PW-7 against four persons was ordered to be registered as a police case.
3. The learned trial Judge found the appellant Lalo Sharma guilty for the offence under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment of one year. The learned trial Judge further convicted both the appellants for offence under Section 312 I.P.C. and awarded rigorous imprisonment of
7 years and fine of Rs.5000/- against both the appellants and in default of payment of fine, the appellants were directed to further undergo simple imprisonment of one year. Sentences against the appellant Lalo Sharma were to run concurrently.
4. The conviction and sentence have been challenged on the ground that there is no allegation or evidence on the record that the appellants caused miscarriage to a woman, hence the conviction under Section 312 IPC is based on conjectures and surmises.
5. Conviction of the appellant Lalo Sharma under Section 376 I.P.C. has been challenged on the ground that serious infirmities in the prosecution evidence have been ignored by the learned trial Judge.
6. The prosecution case as disclosed in the First Information Report (Ext.-3) is that the complainant, a girl about 15 years, had gone to cut grass for feeding the animals, about 3 months prior to filing of the complaint petition dated 30.04.2012. Both the appellants dragged her inside the crop field. Accused Jawahar Sharma put his hand on her mouth and appellant Lalo Sharma ravished her. Due to threat by the accused persons on the life of family members, the complainant did not disclose about the occurrence and later on appellant Lalo Sharma was off and on in physical relation with her alluring her that Lalo would marry with her. Others also established physical relation with her. The complainant became pregnant and on 21.04.2012, the accused persons brought her to a doctor to administer medicines for miscarriage, but the complainant refused to take the same and made alarm as well as disclosed to the public about whatever had happened against her. The date of occurrence is disclosed in between February 2012 to 27.04.2012.
7. During investigation of the case, statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. She has admitted about that statement in her deposition before the court as PW-7. In the statement before the Magistrate, she stated that only appellant Lalo Sharma had ravished her and others acted as a C.I.D. (informer) to Lalo Sharma.
8. After investigation, the police submitted chargesheet and the learned trial Judge framed charges under Sections 323, 376, 312 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The impugned judgment does not speak about acquittal or conviction under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. However, by necessary implication, the appellants were acquitted for those offences.
9. During trial, prosecution examined altogether 10 witnesses. PW-1 Charitar Sharma is grand-father of the victim girl and he has supported the allegation as hearsay evidence. PW-2 Prakash Sharma, PW-3 Surendra Sharma, PW-4 Haldhar Sharma, PW-5 Naval Sharma have not supported the prosecution case, as such the prosecution declared them hostile. PW-6 Pawni Devi is mother of the victim girl and she has supported the allegation as hearsay witness on the disclosure statement of the victim.
10. Pw-7 deposed consistent with what she ha
