The court affirmed that corroborative eyewitness testimony and medical evidence can establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, despite the absence of the murder weapon.

CAV JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY)

Date : 08-12-2025

Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Baidya Nath Thakur and Mr. Anil Kumar Tiwary, learned Advocates for the appellant and Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The present appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction dated 01.02.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) and the order of sentence dated 14.02.2023 (in short referred to as the ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, West Champaran in connection with Sessions Trial No. 09 of 2020, arising out of Majhauliya P.S. Case No. 231 of 2018.

3. By the impugned judgment the appellant namely Ajay Ram has been convicted for the offences under Sections 354 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short referred to as the ‘IPC’) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 354 of the IPC, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and also has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC, to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

Prosecution Case:

4. The prosecution case is based on the written application dated 11.06.2018 given by the informant (P.W. 1). In her written report, she has stated that on 10.06.2018 at 04:00 A.M., when she was returning from the call of nature the appellant had tried to outraged her modesty. The informant, anyhow, managed to escape from the clutches of the appellant. The informant narrated the story before her husband and other family members. On the following day, the informant’s husband and other family members went to tell the appellant as to why he did so. On this, nine accused persons started fighting with them. Sanjay Ram and Ramjee Ram caught hold of the informant’s husband and the appellant gave a tamhauk (farsa) blow to him on his head. He fell down unconscious. Surendra Ram, Binay Ram, Babunti Devi, Uma Devi and Lalmuni Devi armed with stick, farsa, tenguli assaulted father- in-law and elder brother-in-law of the informant.

5. On the basis of the aforesaid written application, Majhauliya P.S. Case No. 231 of 2018 dated 11.06.2018 under Sections 34 1 , 323, 324, 307, 376/511, 302 and 34 of the IPC was registered.

6. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer (I.O.) (P.W. 3) submitted charge-sheet being Charge-Sheet No. 395 of 2018 dated 27.09.2018 under Sections 34 1 , 323, 324, 307, 376/511, 302 and 34 of the IPC.

7. On the basis of the police report, cognizance was taken vide order dated 19.02.2019 under Sections 34 1 , 323, 324, 307, 376/511, 302 and 34 of the IPC against the accused/appellant Ajay Ram.

8. Charges were read over and explained to the appellant/Ajay Ram in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses and exhibited several documents to prove the prosecution case.

10. The accused/appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 23.11.2022, wherein he stated that all the allegations are false and that he is innocent.

Findings of the Learned Trial Court:

11. The learned Trial court has held that the three prosecution witnesses, namely, Kaushalya De