Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 129 of 2013. Case: Sanjay Choure Vs The State of Bihar. High Court of Patna (India)

Case NumberCriminal Appeal (DB) No. 129 of 2013
CounselFor Appellant: Awdhesh Kumar Mishra and Anand Kumar Mishra, Advs. and For Respondents: S.N. Prasad, A.P.P.
JudgesKishore Kumar Mandal and Sanjay Kumar, JJ.
IssueCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 313; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 375, 376(2)(f), 442, 450
Judgement DateFebruary 16, 2017
CourtHigh Court of Patna (India)


Kishore Kumar Mandal, J.

  1. The sole appellant has been convicted by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge-II, Katihar under section 376(2)(f) IPC vide judgment of conviction dated 16.01.2013 and under order of sentence dated 19.01.2013 directed to undergo R.I. for life and to pay the fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment thereof to undergo further imprisonment of six months. He has also been held guilty under section 450 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment thereof to undergo further imprisonment for a period of 03 months. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

  2. The case of the prosecution, as set out in the Fardbeyan (Ext. 2) lodged by the prosecutrix (P.W. 6) recorded on 10.04.2011 at 2.45 P.M. at Sadar Hospital, Katihar by Ram Ganesh Yadav, the S.I. of Katihar Town P.S., in brief, is that on 09.04.2011 at about 11 hours midnight when the mother of the prosecutrix was away from the house in connection with the threshing of wheat and the prosecutrix was sleeping in her house with her younger sister, the appellant intruded into the house and after stripping her of the undergarment forcibly committed rape on her. She started weeping and raised a cry whereupon the appellant fled from the house. Within half an hour, the mother (P.W. 5) of the prosecutrix arrived home to whom she narrated the entire incident. The mother went to the villagers and narrated the incident to them. The mother and her brother brought the prosecutrix to the Sadar Hospital, Katihar next morning where her Fardbeyan was recorded which gave rise to Pranpur P.S. Case No. 53 of 2011. The registration of the case ignited the investigation.

  3. In course of investigation, the accused surrendered in court on 21.06.2011. The victim was medically examined by Dr. Jyoti Saha (P.W. 4) who was posted at the said hospital as the Medical Officer. She submitted the medical report (Ext. 1). Upon conclusion of investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet on 21.07.2011 whereafter cognizance of the offence was taken and vide order dated 10.12.2011 the case was committed to the court of sessions which gave rise to S.T. No. 46 of 2012 subsequently. The case was transferred to the file of the learned trial Judge where charges were famed and explained/read over to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial. The defence of the accused is complete denial of the allegation and his false implication in the case at the instance of the Pradhan of the village.

  4. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined 09 witnesses. The defence filed few documents Exts. A and B. Ext. B is the copy of the complaint whereas Ext. A is the order-sheet of the court on the said complaint. Upon conclusion of the evidence, his statement was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the appellant again denied all the allegations as false and concocted. He claimed his false implication owing to the dispute of the village Pradhan Kurhiya Besara. Using the prosecutrix the Pradhan got the case manufactured/fabricated against him.

  5. On perusal of the evidence on record it is seen that Ramanikol is a small hamlet located in one of the remotest districts of Bihar which is inhabited by the poor tribal people. The picture of the house in which the prosecutrix was living is painted through the evidence of P.Ws. 5 & 6. It is a hut of which the walls are made of 'Thatthi'. There is no door. A Dhadhi (a temporary shield made of bamboos or Thatthi) is used as door of the hut. It is further seen that the father of the prosecutrix was not living with them. He was earning outside...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT