##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.529 of 2015 CNR No. BRHC010876672015 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-387 Year-2010 Thana- MADHEPURA District- Madhepura ======================================================

Sambhu Sada, Son of Kari Sada, Resident of Village Khopaiti, P.S.

Madhepura, District Madhepura.

... ... Appellant Versus The State Of Bihar ... ... Respondent ======================================================

Appearance :

Amicus for the Appellant : Mr. Paritosh Parimal, Adv.

For the Respondent : Ms. Anita Kumari Singh, APP, ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 27-10-2026 Heard the parties.

2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 23.06.2015 and order of sentence dated 09.07.2015 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Madhepura in Sessions Trial No. 53A of 2011, arising out of Madhepura P.S. Case No. 387 of 2010, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 366-A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years with fine for the offence under Section 366-A IPC and rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine for the offence under Section 376 IPC, the sentences having been directed to run concurrently.

The appellant has questioned the aforesaid finding of conviction and sentence primarily on the ground that the prosecution evidence, when examined in its entirety, does not inspire confidence and is insufficient to sustain the conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, as emerging from the written report, is that the informant, namely, Vidyanand Bhagat, father of the victim Soni Kumari, alleged that on the night of 12.09.2010 his minor daughter had been taken away by the accused persons. The allegation was that the victim had been taken away by Sambhu Sada, Rajan Sada, Kari Sada and Sandeep Sada and that certain amount of money was also found missing from the house. On the basis of the written report, Madhepura P.S. Case No. 387 of 2010 came to be instituted under Sections 366-A, 379 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution thereafter proceeded with the investigation and the matter ultimately culminated in trial. The record discloses that the victim was recovered on 17.09.2010 and was thereafter medically examined on

18.09.2010.

4. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, examined altogether ten witnesses. PW-1 Sonu Kumar is the brother of the victim; PW-2 Mala Devi is her mother; PW-3 Lalo Bhagat is her cousin brother; PW-4 Vidyanand Bhagat is the informant and father of the victim; PW-5 Dr. A.K. Verma, PW-6 Dr. Nisha and PW-7 Dr. B.K. Gupta are the medical witnesses; PW-8 Brij Banshi Kumar Singh is the Investigating Officer; PW-9 Soni Kumari is the victim herself and PW-10 Manshur Alam is the learned Judicial Magistrate who recorded the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The prosecution also brought on record the medical documents and the statement of the victim under Section

164 Cr.P.C.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence available on the record. It has been submitted that PW-1 to PW-4 are members of the same family and, except PW-4 who subsequently claimed himself to be an eye-witness, the other family witnesses admittedly had no personal knowledge of the occurrence. It has further been submitted that PW-4 has materially improved his version during trial and his conduct is wholly inconsistent with the conduct of a father who had actually witnessed his minor daughter being forcibly taken away. It has also been submitted that the victim herself has materially varied her version, particularly with regard to the persons who allegedly committed rape upon her. Whereas in her deposi