IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.175 of 2014 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-152 Year-2008 Thana- MANIHARI District- Katihar ======================================================

Mahtab Ali Son of Md. Akbal, Resident of Village- Soharadangi, Police Station- Manjhari, District- Katihar ... ... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Ms. Nazia Shabah, Amicus Curiae For the State : Ms. Anita Kumari Singh, APP ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 19-02-2026 No one appears on behalf of the appellant.

2. On the last occasion, i.e., 18.02.2026, when this appeal was taken up for final hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant.

3. Considering this aspect, Ms. Nazia Shabah (AUIN No. 103824), learned Advocate present in the courtroom, is appointed to assist this Court as Amicus Curiae in this appeal.

4. After some time, the matter is taken up again. Ms.

Nazia Shabah, learned Amicus Curiae, and Ms. Anita Kumari Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, are heard at length.

5. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant, Mahtab Ali, against the judgment of conviction dated

22.02.2014 and the order of sentence dated 26.02.2014 passed in Sessions Trial (S.T.) No. 470 of 2010 by the Court of the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge- 1^st, Katihar, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted of the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for an additional period of two months.

Prosecution Story:-

6. As per prosecution, the prosecutrix was a minor girl aged about 16-17 years at the time of occurrence. The house of the prosecutrix and the house of the accused are adjacent to each other, separated only by a small boundary(tati). About six and half months prior to the filing of the case, when the prosecutrix had gone to the bamboo grove (Bansbari) of accused persons situated behind her house to attend the call of nature, the accused No. 1 (the appellant) forcibly committed rape with her without her consent. When she attempted to raise her alarm, the accused no.1(appellant) threatened to kill her, if she disclosed the incident. Despite her resistance and attempt to save her modesty, she could not prevent that act of the appellant. After the occurrence, the prosecutrix wept and expressed her concern that she was an unmarried girl and questioned the appellant who would marry her then the accused no.1 (appellant) assured her that he would marry her and asked her not to worry. On the assurance of marriage, the accused no. 1 (appellant) continued to establish sexual relations with her on several occasions. As per prosecution, the prosecutrix, being a minor and believing the promise of marriage to be true, submitted herself to such intercourse under that belief. As a result of the repeated sexual intercourse, the prosecutrix became pregnant and at present (at the time of filing of complaint) her pregnancy was about six months. Upon knowing about her pregnancy, she informed the accused no. 1 (appellant), who again assured her that he would marry her soon. However, when the pregnancy reached about three months, the accused persons started pressurizing her to abort the pregnancy, promising that marriage would be solemnized after the abortion. The prosecutrix and her guardians refused to terminate the pregnancy, whereupon the accused persons declined to perform the marriage. Subsequently, the father of the prosecutrix convened a village Panchayati wherein several villagers were present. In the said Panchayati, the accused no. 1 (appellant) admitted his guilt and agreed to marry the p