Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ARVIND SRIVASTAVA and SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA, JJ.
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1156 of 2016
(12.1.2024)
Tuntun @ Dharmendra Ravidas ... Appellant
vs.
State of Bihar ... Respondents
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376 – Rape of minor girl – Life sentence – Corroboration is not sine qua non for conviction in a rape case – Evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands on par with evidence of an injured witness who is the best witness in the sense that she is least likely to exculpate real offender, evidence of a victim of a sex offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding – Eye witness cannot be expected in sex offences having regard to very nature of offence – If evidence of victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity, there is no reason to insist on corroboration except from medical evidence – There is nothing material to disbelieve evidence of victim – Evidence of victim in its entirety clearly makes out a case for offence under Section 376 I.P.C. – Evidence of victim is fully reliable and also corroborated by other evidence on record – There is no reason that parents of victim would tutor her to invent a story of rape on part of appellant in order to implicate appellant – Medical evidence fully supports finding of rape on victim – Conviction to appellant under Section 376 of I.P.C. confirmed – Appellant has no criminal antecedent and poses no threat to society and he has undergone sentence for approximately 11 years 5 months – Protection of society to which criminal and victim belong and deterring criminal is avowed object of law and that is required to be achieved by imposing an appropriate sentence – Ends of justice will be satisfied, if substantive sentence impugned by Trial Court for offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. is reduced from life imprisonment to 12 years rigorous imprisonment – Sentence of fine left undisturbed – Appeal partly allowed. (Paras 16, 25 to 31, 33 and 34)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 374 – Appellate Court is empowered to reappreciate entire evidence on record for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether appellant had committed charged offence or not – If impugned judgment and order is ultimately found to be clearly unreasonable and perverse then such judgment and order can be set aside by Appellate Court. (Para 18)
Sunil Dutta Mishra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State.
2. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 14.09.2016 and order of sentence dated 20.09.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge VIII, Jehanabad in connection with Sessions Trial No.374 of 2013 arising out of Masaurhi P.S. Case No.224 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.3 lakhs and in default thereof, the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for three years. It has further been directed that out of fine of Rs.3 lakhs, an amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs shall liable to be paid to the victim for her rehabilitation.
3. The victim’s name has been concealed in the present judgment and she has been referred to as the victim for maintaining privacy of her identity to protect her dignity.
4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant (victim’s father) gave his fardbeyan on 31.07.2012 before the Masaurhi Police Station inter alia that his daughter (victim) aged about 10 years, who is a student of Class IV, like other days had gone to the Badhar of village for getting she-buffalo grazed and playing. In the evening of the same day, Tuntun Ravidas @ Dharmendra Ravidas of the same village, on the pretext of talking to her brother and feeding jalebi, took her to a lonely place of Badhar where under the guise of alang near palm tree he (Tuntun Ravidas) forcibly committed rape with her. The victim came to her house writhing in pain as also the blood was oozing from her private part and stated about the incident to her family members. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan, Masaurhi P.S. Case No.224 of 2012 under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was registered.
5. It is relevant to mention here that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 brought into force on 14.11.2012 to protect the children from offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment and pornography and the alleged incident on child victim occurred before the POCSO Act, 2012 came into force, accordingly, the said Act has not been made applicable in the instant case.
6. The investigation of the case was carried out by the Investigating Officer and after completion of the investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the appellant under Section 376 of the I.P.C. Thereafter, cognizance was taken on 06.10.2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 511 of the I.P.C. Then the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 04.02.2013 and charge was framed under Section 376 of the I.P.C. against the appellant on which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. To substantiate the charge levelled against the accused/appellant, the prosecution has examined altogether six witnesses, who are as follows:—
P.W.1 is Shyam Babu Das (Independent Witness)
P.W.2 is mother of the victim
P.W.3 is the victim
P.W.4 is the informant & father of the victim
P.W.5 is Dr. Malti Sinha (Medical Officer)
P.W.6 is Santosh Kumar Pankaj (I.O.)
8. The prosecution has also exhibited following documentary evidences:—
Ext.1 is the signature of the victim’s mother (PW-2) on the seizure list.
Ext.1/1 is the seizure list.
Ext.2 is the signature of the victim on statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
Ext.3 is the Medical Report.
Ext.3/1 is Supplementary Medical Report.
Ext.4 is the Fardbeyan
Ext.5 is the Formal F.I.R.
9. After completion of oral and documentary evidences, the statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. bringing to his notice incriminating evidence found against him from the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which he denied and claimed innocence.
10. The defence has not adduced any evidence either oral or documentary in support of his defence.
11. At the conclusion of trial, the Trial Court has convicted the accused/appellant
In rape cases involving minors, credible oral testimony can establish guilt even without corroborative medical evidence, with minimum sentencing requirements upheld.
The conviction under Section 376 IPC emphasizes that a victim's sole testimony, despite minor discrepancies, is substantial and should not be discarded easily, affirming the need for sensitivity in a....
Conviction for sexual offences can be based solely on the victim's credible testimony, without corroboration, if the evidence is clear and consistent; defendants must prove material inconsistencies f....
The appeal dismissed; slightest degree of penetration constitutes rape, affirming conviction despite absence of severe injuries.
The conviction for rape can be overturned if the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate the lack of consent, particularly when the victim's own statements indicate a consensual relationship.
The absence of corroborative medical evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimonies led to the acquittal of the accused in a rape case.
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
