Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 866 of 2012. Case: Arman Mian Vs The State of Bihar. High Court of Patna (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 866 of 2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Rajeev Roy, Sunil Prasad Singh, Rajendra Prasad Sah and Makardhawaj Upadhya, Advs. and For Respondents: Sujit Kumar Singh, APP |
| Judges | Gopal Prasad, J. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 161, 162; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 145; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 323, 34, 341, 342, 376 |
| Judgement Date | September 03, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Patna (India) |
Judgment:
Gopal Prasad, J.
-
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
-
The appellant has been convicted under Section 376 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of ten years and a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine has been ordered to undergo further sentence for a term of six months. The said conviction and sentence has been recorded in Sessions Trial No. 600 of 2009 arising out of Pakridayal P.S. Case No. 12 of 2009 G.R. Case No. 135 of 2009 for offence under Sections 342, 323 and 376/34 of the Penal Code.
-
The prosecution case, as alleged in the first information report registered on the fardbeyan of the informant, Ram Eqbal Mahto giving his statement before the Officer-in-Charge of Pakridayal Police Station at village Harnathpur, East Champaran at Motihari, at 04.15 P.M. alleging therein that on 18.02.2009 at about 11.00 A.M. one Priyanka Kumari, the Sali of his son, Bhikhari Mahto, who used to live in his house since last one year, she had been at the bank of Machhua river which is in the south of the village in Sareh for washing clothes along with one Rani Kumari, the daughter of Bhikhari Mahto, who is neighbour. The informant also had been at the south of village at Sareh for harvesting his mustard crop, he saw Priyanka Kumari and Rani Kumari coming along with the clothes at about 01.30 to 02.00 P.M. Further, case that the informant saw Priyanka Kumari, victim, and she is walking with limping. The, further, case is that the informant also saw Arman Mian coming to the west after crossing the river, hence, the informant anticipated that for some reason Arman Mian may have assaulted Priyanka Kumari and is fleeing away. The informant enquired from Priyanka Kumari for the reason of her weeping, but, she could not explain well. However, enquiry from Rani Kumari it was learnt that Arman Mian, son of Mohan Mian called Priyanka Kumari for uplifting the bundle of harvested mustard and took her across river and, thereafter, take him on his lap and took her on siswani and assaulted. In the meantime, the wife of the informant also came from nearby field, who was harvesting mustard, and enquired from Priyanka Kumari, then, Priyanka Kumari disclosed that she was washing genthra in the rifer, on it's bank, Arman Mian, son of Mohan Mian, came to her and took her across the river on the pretext of uplifting the uprooted mustard bundle or harvested bundle. She, further, disclosed that after going for some distance when she could not see any bundle of harvested bundle, then, she was returning back, but, Arman Mian pressed her mouth, took her in siswani and forcibly tried to unclothe her panty. When Priyanka Kumari protested, then, he gave her a slap and asked her to keep quite and by force take out the panty from her legs and, thereafter, raped her by sexual intercourse, then, the victim made a cry out of pain and after some time of the rape Arman Mian flee away. The blood was oozing out from the private part and then the wife of the informant helped her in taking to the house and the informant chased Arman Mian and caught him at and about his house. In the meantime, the elder brother of Arman Mian came to his rescue and he fled away. The, further, case is that Arman Mian was rescued by Ahsan, the brother of Arman Mian and in the meantime several people of the village collected to whom the informant disclosed about the occurrence and then the informant informed the Mukhiya, who informed the police on mobile and gave his statement before the police and also presented the blood stained cloth of Priyanka Kumari.
-
On the fardbeyan of the informant (not examined) the first information report was duly signed by a witness, Sukhal Mahto, P.W. 2 and on the fardbeyan of the informant the first information report lodged on 18.02.2009, itself, at 19.00 P.M. After recording the fardbeyan the endorsement was made on the fardbeyan to register Pakridayal P.S. Case No. 12 of 2009 and the investigating officer started investigation. The investigating officer is P.W. 9. During investigation, a panty of red colour containing blood stain and the sign of semen and one another cloth of white colour bearing the blood was produced and for which a seizure list was prepared and marked as Exhibit 6, recorded the statement of the victim, Priyanka Kumari. He also recorded the statement of the other witnesses. He also procure the sample of blood and semen of the appellant. He has, further, stated that he sent the blood stained clothes, produced before him, and the sample of the blood and semen of accused-appellant, Arman Mian, for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Attention of the witnesses has also been drawn regarding the statement made by the witnesses before him under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code...
To continue reading
Request your trial