Back
2022 Supreme(Pat) 729
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
A. M. BADAR and RAJESH KUMAR VERMA, JJ.
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.928 of 2013
(29.6.2022)
Parwez Ansari ... Appellant
vs.
State of Bihar ... Respondent
For the Appellant : Mr. Anil Singh, Kumar Dwijendra Pratap.
For the Respondent: Mrs. S.B.Verma.
Headnote:
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Sections 3(1)(xi) and 3(2)(v) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 376(2)(i)(j) and 354A – Rape of girl child – Life sentence – Evidence of victim female child regarding commission of rape on her is gaining full corroboration from other evidence adduced by prosecution – At the time of commission of offence, victim was merely 6-7 years of age – She had not attained consenting age – As such, prosecution has established offence punishable under Section 376(2)(i)(j) of IPC – Defence evidence is not sufficient to cast shadow of doubt on clear, cogent and consistent version of prosecution witnesses – When evidence available on record is sufficient to record conviction, non-examination of other witnesses by prosecution, though such witnesses may be available is of no consequence – Considering charge levelled by prosecution and evidence made available by it, non-examination of doctor who telephoned Police Station, as well as non-examination of other witnesses is of no consequence – Similarly, fact that private part of accused was not having any injury is also of no assistance to defence – There is nothing to point out that in each case such injury occurs – Offence punishable under Section 376(2)(i)(j) of Indian Penal Code is held to be proved against prosecution by cogent and trustworthy evidence adduced by prosecution – However, oral evidence regarding caste of victim is hardly sufficient in such matters – Prosecution has not adduced any evidence to show that victim belongs to either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes – It is not pointed out by prosecution that offence was committed on victim female child on the ground that she is a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe – Conviction as well as resultant sentence imposed on appellant/accused for offence punishable under Section 376(2)(i)(j) of IPC maintained – Accused acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(xi) and 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. (Paras 18 to 22)
A. M. Badar, J.—By this appeal, appellant/convicted accused Parwez Ansari is challenging the judgment and order dated 01.06.2013 and 07.06.2013 respectively passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur, thereby convicting him of the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(i)(j) and Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 3(1)(xi) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. For the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(i)(j) of the Indian Penal Code, he is sentence to suffer imprisonment for life apart from imposition of fine of Rs. 50,000/- and default sentence of five years. No separate sentence was imposed on him for the offence punishable under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the appellant/accused is sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for fiver years. For the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, he is sentence to suffer imprisonment for life. Substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently by the learned trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the appellant shall be referred to in his original capacity as an accused.
2. Facts leading to the prosecution of the accused projected from the police report can be summarized thus:—
(A) Accused Parawez Ansari is resident of village Terhi Bazar falling under Police Station Mohiuddin Nagar of district Samastipur. First informant Ramdev (PW 4) is also resident of the same village. The incident in question allegedly took place after 6:30 PM of 03.03.2013. Six years old daughter of PW 4 Ramdev is stated to be the victim of the crime in question.
(B) According to the prosecution case, at about 6:30 PM of 03.03.2013, the PW 5 - the minor female child, aged about 6 years had gone to neighbouring shop for purchasing. She did not return in due time. Therefore, her father PW 4 Ramdev started searching her. He heard her cry emanating from the bank of river Sursar, adjacent to the Aanganwari. PW. 4 Ramdev, therefore, rushed to the spot of the incident followed by Umesh Kumar (PW 2), Devilal, Dharmendra, Ashok Paswan (PW 3) as well as other villagers. They saw the accused committing rape on 6 years old daughter of PW 4 Ramdev. The accused came to be apprehended. The victim female child (PW 5) became unconscious. She as well as the accused were then taken to the hospital at Mohiuddin Nagar by PW 4 Ramdev as well as the co-villagers.
(C) The doctor at the Mohiuddin Nagar Hospital telephonically informed the Police Station Mohiuddin Nagar regarding the incident. Thereafter, PW 10 Lal Keshwar Prasad Singh, Police Station Officer, rushed to the hospital. The accused came to be handed over to him and was arrested by him. PW 4 Ramdev then submitted the written FIR and accordingly Crime No. 31/2013 came to be registered at the Police State Mihiuddin Nagar.
(D) During the course of investigation, PW 10 Lal Keshwar Prasad Singh, I.O., seized the half pant of the accused vide seizure memo Exhibit-8. Similarly, the Panty of the victim came to be seized vide seizure memo Exhibit-9. The spot came to be inspected. Statement of the witnesses came to be recorded. On completion of routine investigation, the accused came to be charge sheeted.
(E) The learned trial Court framed the charge and explained the same to the accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(F) In order to bring home the guilt to the the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses. The defence of the accused as gathered from the line of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses as well as from his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is that of total denial.
(G) According to the defence version, initially a mob of 50-60 persons entered in the locality where muslims from the village re
