Credibility of witness testimony and the need for corroborative evidence are essential in sexual assault cases; mere hearsay and inconsistencies cannot support a conviction.

JUDGMENT :

RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Abhas Chandra learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad learned APP for the State.

2. This appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) against the Judgment and Order dated 05.11.2007 and 08.11.2007 in Sessions Trial No. 141 of 2002, arising out of Sahar P.S. Case No. 119 of 1998 corresponding to G.R. No. 2330 of 1998 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (F.T.C.)-IVth, Bhojpur at Ara whereby and where-under the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 511 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for five years.

3. The prosecution case is based on the Fardbeyan of the informant before the police of Sahar P.S. Case No. 119 of 1998 stating therein that on 08.10.1998 at about 12 AM the informant went to the canal with her goat, in the meantime, Kalendra Yadav came their and tried to outrage her modesty after opening her panty, but she put a bite in his hand, raised alarm, after which one Mushhar (villager) came and the appellant fled away. Thereafter the informant came at his house narrated the story to her parents after which the Panchayati was desirous but due to failure thereof the informant with her mother reached at the Police Station and lodged this case.

4. On the basis of Fardbeyan, a formal First Information Report was registered as Sahar P.S. Case No. 119 of 1998 dated 10.10.2008 for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 511 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet under Sections 376 and 511 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions.

5. During the trial the prosecution has examined seven witnesses to substantiate this case. Out of them, PW-1 Jagadish Sharma, PW-2 Sheo Kumari Devi, PW-3 Jiwan Kumari (informant), PW-4 Tapeshwar Singh, PW-5 Nand Kishore Singh, PW-6 Harischandra Paswan and PW-7 Brahmdeo Singh.

6. PW-1 Jagadish Sharma (father of the informant), who is hearsay witness. In his examination-in-chief stated that occurrence took place at 12pm in the year 1998 and at that time he was working in some other place and he came to know about the incident by her daughter. In his cross- examination, he stated that the place where his daughter went to graze the goats that place does not belongs to Kalendra Yadav and Kalendra Yadav does not have any field. He said that his daughter did not tell the name of that people from Mushar community who has come there at the time of occurrence.

7. PW-2 Sheo Kumari Devi (mother of the informant), who is also the hearsay witness. In her examination- in-chief stated that occurrence took place around four and half years ago in the noon and she was at home when the daughter narrated the incident to her. She further stated that her daughter told that she had gone to gaze the goats then Kalendr Yadav opened her pant and tried to insult her due to which she shouted and a passerby came there after hearing her cry then Kalendra Yadav fled away. She further stated that when the panchyati was called Kalendra’s father refused to consider the decision of the panches, thereafter she went to the police station and lodged a case against accused person. She further gave her thumb impression before the Sub-Inspector on the fardbeyan.

8. PW-3 Jiwan Kumari (informant), she was of about 13 years of age at the time of alleged occurrence. In her examination-in-chief stated that occurrence took place four and half years ago, it was noon time and she was not married at that time. She went to graze