X Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 26.10.2018 passed in Sessions Trial no. 195 of 2011 whereby the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Saharsa was pleased to hold that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the charges under sections 376, 452, 354 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent no. 2 and thus was pleased to acquit him from the charges.

(2.) The case of the prosecution as per the written statement of the informant (appellant herein) (PW-3) made on 9.2.2009 to the Officer-In-Charge, Nauhatta Police Station is that Indra Kant Jha (respondent no. 2) who is a hot headed person with a bad character caries with him a firearm and imposes himself on other persons. It is stated that three days prior to the occurrence, he had made a demand of Rs. 5,000/- by way of loan but because of his character, the appellant refused to give the said amount to him. It is further stated that the husband of the appellant Lakshman Jha (PW-5) works in Delhi as a labourer while she along with her minor daughter (PW-4) and aged mother-in-law (PW-2) reside at their house. On 7.2.2009, in the night the appellant was sleeping in her house with her 12 year old daughter. The door was not locked and a lantern was burning. It is stated that at about 12 am in the night of 7.2.2009 the appellant entered the house, caught hold of the informant and attempted to commit rape on her. On her shouting, her daughter woke up from sleep and on hulla being raised by both of them, a gold chain worth about Rs. 30,000/- was snatched by the respondent no. 2. On hearing the hulla, it is stated that the appellant's mother-in-law Purnima Devi got up and in the torch light saw and identified the respondent no. 2 running away. It is further stated that on way near the house, co-villagers Ram Sundar Mishra and Chandeshwari Sharma identified the respondent no. 2 in the light of torch. Thereafter, it is stated that the appellant narrated the entire incidence to them on which they chased him, however, the respondent no. 2 after firing in the air from his firearm managed to escape. It is further stated by the appellant that she narrated the entire occurrence on mobile phone to her husband who was in Delhi and on her husband arriving back home, the application was written and they came to the police station. On the written statement dated 9.2.2009 of the appellant addressed to the Officer-In-charge, Nauhatta Police Station, the FIR being Nauhatta P.S. Case no. 11 of 2009 was registered on 9.2.2009 for offence under sections 452, 341, 342, 354, 379 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) In course of investigation the statement of the appellant was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C and by order dated 15.4.2009 section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was added. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted in the case and by order dated 10.3.2010 cognizance of the offence under sections 376, 452, 379, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code was taken. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and charges were framed under sections 376, 452, 354 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code.