LAL BABU SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is so preferred by the appellants Lal Babu Sah, Kaushal Kumar Singh and Upendra Singh against the judgment of conviction and sentence so passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No. 81/91 by virtue of which the accused-appellants have been convicted under Sections 376 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and after hearing on the point of sentence they have been directed as to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

(2.) The prosecution was so launched against the appellants on the basis of the Fardbeyan marked as Ext. 2 so given by the first informant of this case Nazir Das figuring as P.W. 7 detailing that on 25-12-89 his daughter Sunita Kumari aged about 15-16 years (since deceased) along with her younger brother Sanjay Das (P.W. 5) had gone to the flour mill of one Choudhary Sah for grinding of wheat and maize and because of the brother and sister not returning till 3 p.m. the informant went to the flour mill of Choudhary Sah in search of them where he could locate his son Sanjay Das (PW 5) standing there alone and on query Sanjay Das (P.W. 5) narrated the informant (P.W.7) with regard to Sunita being taken away by one of the accused Lal Babu Sah on the plea of her being called by the informant's wife and could not return thereafter. Suspecting foul game, the informant started searching his daughter and when, as per the prosecution story, he reached near one closed flour mill at a distance of 25-30 yards from the flour mill of Kuldip Rai, he claimed to hear some sound coming from the side of the closed flour mill and the informant located one man standing at the door of the said mill and the said man standing was identified to be Raj Kumar Singh who started fleeing away seeing the informant. Soon thereafter, as per the prosecution case, all the three accused-appellants came out of the said mill and started fleeing away. It is on hulla that the prosecution witnesses came who also identified the accused persons fleeing away from the place of occurrence. Thereafter P.W. 7 along with other witnesses claim to go inside the aforesaid flour mill of Kuldip Rai and found Sunita lying dead in a naked position. A piece of cloth was so found inserted in her mouth and a pair of Chappal was also found at the spot. Further case of the prosecution is that the matter was reported to the Surpanch figuring in course of trial as P.W. 8 and also to the Mukhiya. They could thus guess that Sunita Kumari, the daughter of the informant, was gang raped by the accused-appellants and then murdered where her dead body was so left abandoned in the flour mill of Kuldip Rai. At the instance of the Mukhiya and Surpanch the accused-appellants were also apprehended being kept detained at the Darwaza of the Mukhiya and next morning being handed over to the Investigating Officer of this case. On the basis of the Fardbeyan so given, it transpires that Hajipur P. S. Case No. 56/89 was so registered and after completion of the investigation chargesheet was so submitted in connection with this matter. One of the accused, namely, Raj Kumar Singh (absconding) could not face the trial in Sessions Trial No. 81/91. After taking cognizance of the offence it further transpires that case record was so committed to the Court of session when the charge was so framed against the accused-appellants under Section 376 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code on 16th August, 1991 for the accused appellants committing rape and thereafter causing death of Sunita Kumari, daughter of the first informant Nazir Das on 25th of December, 1989 in the evening hours in village Jahangirpur, P. S. Raghopur district Vaishali in furtherance of common intention. The accused-appellants abjured the guilt and claim to be tried.

(3.) In course of trial as many as 10 proesecution witnesses have been examined. Two D. Ws. have also been examined on behalf of the defence. The inquest report so prepared by the Investigating Officer is proved and marked as Ext. 3. There is also seizure of a pair of Chappal so found at the place of occurrence and the seizure list so prepared is proved in couse of trial and marked as Ext. 4. Post mortem report so prepared by Dr. U. N. Jha (P.W. 9) is marked as Ext. 5. P.W.1 is a formal witness who has proved formal F.I.R. marked as Ext. 1. P.Ws. 2, 4 and 6, in course of trial, it transpires are declared hostile. P.Ws. 3, 7 and 8 are on the point with regard to their knowing about the details of the occurrence from the first informant (P.W. 7) and also locating the accused-appellants fleeing away from the flour mill of Kuldip Rai at the relevant time and in the said mill locating the dead body of theinformant's daughter Sunita Kumari. P.W. 9 is the medical officer conducting post mortem examination on the dead body of Sunita Kumari whereas P.W. 10 is the Investigating Officer of this case. Out of two D.Ws. examined i.e. Munshi Mahto and Bashistha Sah they are on the point that when these two witnesses produced on behalf of the defence did arrive at the mill of Kuldip Rai, they could not find any of the accused persons fleeing away from the said mill. The learned Court below, it transpires after evaluating the evidence available on record has come to the conclusion that though the present case was based on circumstantial evidence but the chain of evidence so produced was so much complete in itself that no other hypothesis can be drawn except the guilt of the accused-appellant committing the offence coming under the purview of Section 376 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and taking that view the learned Court below has thus convicted and sentenced accused-appellants as detailed above and against the said impugned judgment of conviction and sentence so passed, thus this Criminal Appeal is so preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.