IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.594 of 2015
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -10 Year- 2004 Thana -FATUHA District- PATNA
SANJU SINGH SON OF LATE GURUSHARAN SINGH RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE – SIKANDARPUR, P.S. FATUHA, DISTRICT – PATNA.
…. …. APPELLANT/S
VERSUS
THE STATE OF BIHAR
…. …. RESPONDENT/S
Appearance:
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Dinkar Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sujeet Kumar Singh, APP
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 04-07-2017
1. Sole appellant Sanju Singh has been found guilty for
an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and sentence to
undergo R.I. for ten years as well as to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- and
in default thereof, to undergo imprisonment of nine months
additionally vide judgment of conviction and sentence dated
31.08.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, VIIth, Patna
City, Patna relating to Sessions Trial No.723/2004.
2. Bereft of unnecessary details, victim (name withheld),
PW.1 filed written report on 27.01.2004 for an occurrence dated
16.01.2004 at about 07:00 PM alleging inter alia that while she
was in her room, Sanju made house trespass, closed the door and
then, committed rape upon her as a result of which, she became
unconscious. After regaining her sense, she found the Sanju over
‘Chali’ in order to hide himself. On her cry her cousin brother
Bichandar Kumar has locked the room from outside. Furthermore,
it has also been alleged that seeing her, they have opened the door
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.594 of 2015 dt.04-07-2017 2
caught hold Sanju, taken to Gali, wherefrom he escaped.
Subsequently thereof, the caste people convened panchayati which
was also dishonored. Lastly, seeing no an alternative, filed instant
case.
3. Fatuha P.S. Case No.10/2004 was registered under
Section 376 IPC whereupon investigation commenced and after
concluding the same, charge sheet was submitted facilitating the
trial which concluded in a manner, subject matter of instant
appeal.
4. Defence case as is evident from mode of cross-
examination as well as statement recorded under Section 313 of
the Cr.P.C. is that of complete denial and to substantiate the same,
one DW, Ranjeet Kumar has also examined.
5. In order to substantiate its case prosecution had
examined three PWs out of whom PW.1 is victim, PW.2 is Kanti
Devi her mother and PW.3 is Nagina Singh, her father. Side by side
had also exhibited Ext.I- Signature of victim over written report,
Ext.2-Signature of victim over statement recorded under Section
164 Cr.P.C.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that
victim happens to be major and from her conduct, it is evident that
she happens to be a consenting party as, the appellant is none
other than younger brother of her brother-in-law Dharam Nath.
Therefore, question of rape does not arise. Furthermore, it has also
been submitted that though there happens to be deficiency at the
end of the conducting counsel who failed in specific term to
suggest the victim to be major and further, that appears to be
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.594 of 2015 dt.04-07-2017 3
simply a mistake expecting presence of doctor during trial who
never been produced by the prosecution, even then, the victim was
cross-examined on that very score under para-7 and so, due to
non-examination of the doctor appellant has been forbidden to
bring on record the sufficient evidence which could have
exonerated the appellant from the criminal liability and so, not
only the victim be considered to be a major as well as a consenting
party who subsequently been influenced by her parents to drag the
appellant under criminal prosecution, simultaneously the court
should also hold that on account of non-examination of the doctor,
interest of appellant has been prejudiced.
7. Furthermore, it has also been submitted that in
likewise manner, non-examination of Investigating Officer has also
caused prejudice to the interest of the appellant. To substantiate
such plea, it has been submitted that had there been examination
of Investigating Officer the development in the prosecution case
properly been surfaced along with doubtfulness over prosecution
version in consonance with objective finding relating to the place of
occurrence.
8. Now coming to merit of the case it has also been
submitted that virtually neither rape was committed nor the
parties have had indulged in physical relationship rather they
happens to be love birds in the background of inter-se relationship
and some sort of activities were found perceived by her family
members and on account thereof, she has been forced to instituted
this case. Had there been an occurrence of rape then in that
circumstance the Brother, the Bhabhi of victim whose presence
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.594 of 2015 dt.04-07-2017 4
were in adjoining room, would not have allowed themselves to slave
on that score and in likewise manner, would not have allowed the
appellant to be spared alive. There happens to be no disclosure
that after apprehension of the appellant from the said room, he
was even given a slap. The other circumstances, which the learned
counsel for the appellant has argued that had there been an
occurrence of rape, then in that circumstance the mother would
not have allowed herself to stay away from her house for nine
consecutive days that too in the background of the fact that none
was to care her. In the aforesaid background, it has been
submitted that happens to be reason behind that neither own
brother, Bhabhi has been cited as charge sheet witness nor
Birchandar, the cousin brother who is said to have apprehended
appellant has been made. Why not those persons at least the
family members came forward to support the case of the
prosecution that the victim was raped in their presence or they
have had apprehended the appellant after the occurrence in a
room where his presence was on account of committing rape over
the victim and in likewise manner corroborating the fact of the
rape that means to say deposing over physical condition of victim,
any kind of spot (saver) over Salwar, bed sheet and further, those
items were handed over to the Investigating Officer during course
of investigation.
9. It has also been submitted that delay in institution of
the case more particularly relating to rape in the background of
Indian social fabric whereunder the prestige of a girl happens to be
of paramount consideration and is tagged with the prestige of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.594 of 2015 dt.04-07-2017 5
family, has not been considered unusual nor on that very score the
prosecution case is to be brushed aside but, in the peculiar nature
of the case whereunder victim had properly identified presence of
his brother, Bhabhi along with children in a room adjacent to the
room wherein she was raped, having no place of occlusion, and
even then unhindered opportunity of free access instead of accused
galloping therefrom, put his presence till his apprehension and
then an explanation at the end of the prosecution over his absence
that he managed to escape therefrom is something to say over
which the delay has got an important role to play and has to be
seen in the background of aforesaid context. So, in the aforesaid
facts and circumstances of the case, it has been submitted that
virtually no rape was committed. May be, they have been found in
awkward situation and for that, due to pressure having exhorted
upon the victim, this case has been, filed. So submitted that in the
facts and circumstances of the case, the findings so recorded by
the learned lower court is to be erased by way of allowing appeal.
10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor controverted
the submission and submitted that victim was a minor on the
alleged date of occurrence, which has not been challenged at the
end of appellant, therefore, the consent has got no role to play and
that being so, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned
lower court happens to be justified. Furthermore, it has also been
submitted that from the cross-examination having been made on
behalf of appellant, it is apparent that victim has been able to face
the litmus paper test and so, on flimsy grounds, her evidence
should not be discarded. That being so, the judgment of conviction
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.594 of 2015 dt.04-07-2017 6
and sentence recorded by the learned lower court is fit to be
confirmed.
11. It is well settled that evidence of prosecutrix if inspires
confidence, would require no corroboration. Event of rape happens
to not only pernicious to the victim rather it causes physical,
psychological as well emotional scar which survives till her lifeline
virtually ruining her persondism, as it is found a kind of stigma
and that happens to be reason behind acceptance of evidence of
prosecutrix without any immurement. However, if the evidence of
the prosecutrix is found deficient on its face value then in that
event, certainly the court will require for corroboration.
12. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is
evident that appellant happens to be younger brother of brother-in-
law of victim, PW.1. Furthermore, it is evident that on account of
death of daughter, the prosecution party has become aggrieved.
Though Investigating Officer has not been examined but from the
evidence of PW.1, it is apparent that the house is being occupied
by her family as well as family of her uncle. Two rooms have been
allotted to share of her father out of which, one was occupied by
her elder brother Santosh who, at the relevant time was present
along with his wife and children. Both the rooms are adjacent to
each other. The room in which occurrence is said to have
committed has got so many windows without being grilled and so,
one could have free access. There happens to be no evidence that
curtain was there. Furthermore, no independent witnesses have
come forward to say that they have seen the appellant going inside
the house of the victim. Own elder brother who was present with
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.594 of 2015 dt.04-07-2017 7
his family in the adjoining room has not come forward to
corroborate the evidence of victim and in likewise manner, the
cousin brother who had locked the room from outside caught hold
the accused and from whose custody accused managed to flee.
Apart from this, when the victim had himself disclosed that there
was window at all sides without having grill, full having
unobstructed opportunity to passage then in that event, presence
of appellant inside the room till his apprehension and then got
himself found in a Gali where he was taken, is another
circumstance. In the aforesaid background the delay, although is
found non cognito so far rape is concerned, has to be explained
considering the conduct of remaining two witnesses who are non-
else than parents of the victim. In the background of aforesaid
deficiency, now the evidence of PW.2 as well as PW.3 her parents is
to be looked into. Certainly they are not an eye witness to
occurrence as they were not present. PW.2 while was at the place
of his elder daughter PW.3 Nagina Singh was also at the place of
another daughter they have not disclosed that they were informed
by their son with regard to such kind of incidence. PW.2 mother
had stated that villagers have informed her that some misfortune
occurred whereupon she came and then was informed. Panchayati
was also convened but could not materialized. At the other end,
PW.3 the father had said that when he returned back from the
place of his daughter then victim had disclosed regarding the
event. Panchayati was convened which could not materialized and
on account thereof case has been registered.
13. PW.1 is the victim who had deposed that on the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.594 of 2015 dt.04-07-2017 8
alleged date and time of occurrence she was alone at her house.
Her father who works at brick-kiln had not returned so doors were
open. After sometime door was closed over which she though that
her father has come but she became surprise to see that it was
Sanju (appellant) whereupon she raised alarm. Then thereafter,
Sanju caught hold, gagged her mouth, threw her over chowki,
untied her string and then committed rape as a result of which she
became unconscious. After regaining sense she raised alarm
whereupon her cousin brother locked the room from outside and
then, collected the other caste name who caught hold Sanju from
the room. Sanju, subsequently escaped their custody. Villagers
also convened panchayati which could not materialized. Then
thereafter, after eleven days, this case has been filed at her end.
Apart from divulgence of fact during course of cross-examination,
it is apparent from the evidence of PW.1 that she had not disclosed
with regard to absence of her mother on account of staying at
Kolkata and in likewise manner, absence of her father who had
gone to the place of her another sister, instead thereof had deposed
that she was awaiting her father who had gone to brick-kiln where
he works. Furthermore, during her cross-examination at para-25
had disclosed that she had suffered from diarrhoea and for which,
satine was given to as a result of which, she was very weak. Had
she suffered such kind of illness then in that event, possibility of
absence of PW.2 as well as PW.3 was not at all a normal
phenomena. At the other end PW.1 herself disclosed that she was
awaiting presence of her father who had gone to brick-kiln where
he works. Apart from this, when both situation is being perceived
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.594 of 2015 dt.04-07-2017 9
then in that circumstance non-response of Santosh, her elder
brother, her Bhabhi and children who were present in adjacent
room within the same periphery of the house gives a peculiar
picturization. It should also be seen considering that, appellant
being a handicapped (Ext.A) and further without having allegation
that he was armed with deadly weapon victim was terrorized, put
under threat of life, and further, the victim perceived the lascivious
attitude of accused when he closed the door, was really a situation,
faced by her. In likewise manner cousin brother Bichandar’s
presence who had locked the room, caught hold the appellant,
along with other members of her castemen, and getting free from
their clutch, is another circumstance to consider, when the
aforesaid event has not been flashed by the parents PW.3 PW.3.
14. In Aman Kumar v. State of Haryana reported in
(2004) 4 SCC 379 it has been held:
“5. It is well settled that a prosecutrix
complaining of having been a victim of the offence
of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. There
is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be
acted upon without corroboration in material
particulars. She stands on a higher pedestal than
an injured witness. In the latter case, there is
injury on the physical form, while in the former it
is both physical as well as psychological and
emotional. However, if the court of facts finds it
difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on
its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or
circumstantial, which would lend assurance to
her testimony. Assurance, short of corroboration
as understood in the context of an accomplice,
would suffice.”
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.594 of 2015 dt.04-07-2017 10
15. Giving anxious consideration to the facts and
circumstances of the case, it is apparent that prosecution failed to
substantiate its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt
consequent thereupon, the finding recorded by the learned lower
court is set aside. Consequently appeal is allowed. Appellant is on
bail, hence is being discharged from its liability.
(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)
Prakash Narayan
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 07.07.2017
Transmission 07.07.2017
Date