SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Pat) 971

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.
Heera Devi, Wife of Domi Srivastva and ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.1249, 1288 of 2017
Decided On : 22-08-2019

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.Diwakar Prasad Singh, Om Prakash Singh
For the Respondent: Mr. Binod Bihari Singh

The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of effective cross-examination and the implications of not challenging the witness's testimony, especially in cases involving serious charges like kidnapping and rape.

Headnote:

Criminal Appeal - Kidnapping and Rape - Section 376, Section 366, Section 342, Section 506 of the IPC - The court discussed and referenced Section 376, Section 366, Section 342, and Section 506 of the IPC. The key legal provisions discussed were related to the evidence of the victim, the absence of cross-examination, and the implications of not challenging the witness's testimony. These influenced the court's decision to set aside the conviction and sentence for two appellants and dismiss the appeal for the third appellant.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved the kidnapping and rape of a minor girl. The victim's family reported her missing, and she was later found pregnant. The defense claimed that the victim had willingly married one of the appellants and was a consenting party.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the evidence of the victim was crucial, and the absence of effective cross-examination raised doubts. The court set aside the conviction and sentence for two appellants due to benefit of doubt, while dismissing the appeal for the third appellant.

Issues: The issues included the credibility of the victim's testimony, the absence of effective cross-examination, and the implications of the victim's marital status on the charges.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of effective cross-examination and the need to challenge the witness's testimony. The absence of effective cross-examination led to doubts and benefit of doubt for two appellants. The victim's marital status and its implications on the charges were also considered.

Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction and sentence for two appellants and dismissed the appeal for the third appellant.

JUDGMENT :

1. Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1249 of 2017 wherein Heera Devi as well as Akhilesh Srivastava @ Akhilesh Kumar Srivastva @ Ashish are the appellants, Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1288 of 2017 wherein Angad Kumar Yadav is the appellant commonly originate against the judgment of conviction dated 28.02.2017 and order of sentence dated 06.03.2017 relating to Sessions Trial No.188/2013 arising out of Saharsa P.S. Case No.87/2013 on account thereof, have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

2. Appellant, Akhilesh Srivastava @ Akhilesh Kumar Srivastva @ Ashish has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years as well as to pay fine appertaining to Rs.5000/-in default thereof, to undergo S.I. for three months under Section 376 IPC as well as under Section 366 of the IPC respectively, along with to undergo R.I. for one year as well as to pay fine appertaining to Rs.1000/-in default thereof, to undergo S.I. for one month, under Section 342 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years as well as to pay fine appertaining to Rs.1000/-in default thereof to undergo S.I. for one month under Section 506 of the IPC while, appellants Hira Devi and Angad Kumar Yadav have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year as well as to pay fine appertaining to Rs.1000/-in default thereof, to undergo S.I. for one month under Section 342 IPC to undergo R.I. for two years as well as to pay fine appertaining to Rs.1000/-in default thereof to undergo S.I. for one month under Section 506 of the IPC, to undergo R.I. for seven years as well as to pay fine appertaining to Rs.3000/-in default thereof to undergo S.I. for two months under Section 366/34 IPC with a further direction that all the sentences will run concurrently, with a further direction that the period having undergone during trial will be set off in accordance with Section 428 of the IPC by the First Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Saharsa in Sessions Trial No.188/2017.

3. Mahadev Rishidev, PW.9 filed written report on 24.02.2013 disclosing therein that his wife Rambha Devi (PW.5) happens to be in service at Purnea being employed in Polytechnic School. Earlier, they were living at mohalla Ram Nagar at Purnea town as a tenant in the house of Vijay Gupta. About a month ago they have come to Saharsa and were residing in their own house along with his daughter (name withheld PW.3) aged about seventeen years, son (PW.1), daughter-in-law (PW.4) and opened a grocery shop to maintain their livelihood. On 19.02.2013 he along with his son has gone outside. When they returned back about 11:00 AM. They came to know that the victim is missing since 3-4 hours. On account thereof, they gone in search of the victim and during course thereof, he came to know that Akhilesh Srivastava @ Akhilesh Kumar Srivastva @ Ashish, Son of Domi Srivastva of Village-Milki Tola, PS-Maranga, District-Purnea along with the victim has gone towards Tiwary Tola over motorcycle bearing registration no.BR-11G/5343. After sometime, he received a call from mobile no.9570701636 wherefrom he was informed that victim has been kidnapped by Akhilesh Srivastava @ Akhilesh Kumar Srivastva @ Ashish with the help of his friend Angad Kumar Yadav, Nanku Yadav who has taken her away towards Purnea. Then thereafter, they gone in search and during course thereof visited Madhepura, Singheshwar and other place, and then came to Purnea and during course thereof, they came to know that Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, Jyoti Kumari (friend of the victim), Angad Kumar Yadav, Hira Devi, Nanku Kumar have enticed away the victim. He also came to know that the kidnapping has been either for the purpose of marriage or to sale.

4. After registration of Sadar P.S. Case No.87/2013 investigation commenced and after concluding the same charge sheet has been submitted during midst thereof, the victim has been recovered, her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. She was medically examined and during course thereof, she has been found

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top