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

2024 Supreme(Pat) 1014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR, J.
Laxhmi Yadav, Son of Late Dasrath Yadav and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State Of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.778 Of 2006
Decided On : 19-06-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Vipul Sinha, Amicus Curiae.
For the Respondent: Mr. A.M.P. Mehta, APP

The prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt; contradictions in witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence led to the acquittal of the appellants.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 376 and 511 - Conviction for attempt to commit rape - Appellants convicted and sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment - Prosecution's case based on the testimony of interested witnesses, with contradictions and lack of medical evidence - Delay in filing FIR raises doubts on authenticity of prosecution version. (Paras 2, 14, 16)

(B) Benefit of doubt - The court emphasized that the prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, and contradictions in witness testimonies and absence of corroborative evidence led to the acquittal of the appellants. (Paras 16, 18)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were accused of attempting to commit rape on the complainant, who alleged that they caught her and attempted to drag her towards a secluded area. Witnesses claimed to have intervened, but their testimonies were inconsistent.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictions in witness statements and lack of medical evidence.

Issues: The main issues included the credibility of witness testimonies, the delay in filing the FIR, and the overall burden of proof on the prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution's failure to provide credible evidence and the presence of contradictions warranted the benefit of doubt to the appellants.

Result: Appeals allowed; appellants acquitted of all charges.

JUDGMENT :

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J.)

Heard Mr. Vipul Sinha, learned Amicus curiae on behalf of the appellants and Mr. A.M.P. Mehta, learned APP appearing for the State.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction dated 24.8.2006 and order of sentence dated 25.8.2006 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Araria, in Sessions Trial No. 643/2001 & 92/2001, whereby and whereunder the appellants/ convicts were convicted under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offences punishable under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 15.9.2000 at about 6:00 a.m while the complainant was cleaning utensils at ‘Chapanal’ in front of her house, the appellants Laxmi Yadav and Bidhyanand Yadav rushed there and caught her from behind. They told her to proceed towards bari upon which the complainant opposed, thereafter, both accused persons pushed her towards bari and torn her sari & blouse and tried to commit rape. When the complainant protested and raised alarm, the appellant Laxmi Yadav called his other associates who are appellant Nos. 3, 4 & 5. After that, all the accused persons tried to commit rape with the complainant after abusing and they also assaulted her. On hulla, the witnesses namely Shail Kumar Yadav, Udyachand Yuadav and Rajendra Yadav rushed to the place of occurrence and saved the complainant.

4. On the basis of a complaint, Complaint Case No. 1866C of 2000 was registered against the appellants for the offences punishable under sections 376, 511, 504, 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial.

5. In order to bring home the guilt to the accused, altogether five witnesses had been examined on behalf of the prosecution. The defence had also examined one witness on his behalf.

6. P.W.1, Udyachand Yadav in his examination-in-chief has deposed that at the time of occurrence, he was at his door which is in front of the tube-well (place of occurrence) where the complainant (P.W.-4) was cleaning her utensils. He further deposed that he saw that the appellants Laxmi Yadav and Bidyanand Yadav came there from behind and caught the complainant started draging her towards kelabari. The accused persons torn her clothes and tried to commit rape. On raising alarm, this witness and other witnesses namely Shail Kumar Yadav and Rajendra Yadav rushed at the place of occurrence and saved the complainant. This witness has also deposed that appellant Binod Yadav assaulted the complainant when the accused persons failed to commit rape upon the complainant.

7. P.W.2, Shail Kumar Yadav has deposed in his examination-in-chief that at the time of occurrence, he was going to attend the nature’s call. He saw that appellant Laxmi Yadav caught hold of the complainant and dragging her towards ‘bari’ whereafter, appellants Bidyanand and Laxmi Yadav torn her clothes due to which she became totally naked. He further deposed that on halla, he, Rajendra and others proceeded there and saved the victim from the clutches of the accused appellants.

8. P.W.3, Rajendra Yadav in his examination-in-chief has deposed that he had gone to see his field at about 6:00 a.m on the date of occurrence, when he saw appellants Bidyanand Yadav and Laxmi Yadav were catching hold of the complainant and dragging her towards bariwhere they torn her sari and blouse. He further deposed that he did not see the accused trying to rape the complainant but the complainant herself had said so.

9. P.W. 4 Dewaki Devi is the complainant herself, who in her examination-in-chief has deposed that on the alleged date of occurrence, at about 6:00 a.m, when she was cleaning utensils at ‘chapanal’ then the appellants Laxmi Yadav and Bidhyanand Yadav came there and caught hold of her from behind. She further depo

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