RAJDEO RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole appellant on being tried by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, in Sessions Trial No. 53 of 1989 suffered conviction under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years on that count.

(2.) THE factual matrix are that in the night of 22nd January, 1988, when Ram Baran Roy found his sister Bachi Devi missing from the house, made hectic search for her in the company of Jagdish Roy (PW -3) and Ram Chandra Roy (PW -2) and in their bid to make search for Bachi Devi, they happened to meet Baiju Roy (PW -5) who narrated to them to have witnessed Rajdeo Ram (appellant) gossiping in the evening with Bachi Devi. The worried brother suspecting complicity of Rajdeo Ram, visited house of the latter when he was informed by the mother of the appellant that Rajdeo Ram may be available in the cattle shed of Lai Babu Mian where he usually goes for a sleep. It was alleged that Ram Baran Roy along with the villagers visited palani of Lal Babu Mian and apprehended both Bachi Devi and Rajdeo Ram. However, before they were apprehended, the brother of Bachi Devi had set the Police in motion on rendering his fardbeyan before the Police at 7.15 hours on 23rd January, 1988 which forms the basis of the First Information Report drawn up by the Police.

(3.) THE finding recorded by trial Court is sought to be impeached by the learned Counsel for the appellant on premises that the objective finding of the Investigating Officer about situation of the place of occurrence and evidence and Bachi Devi thereon were not coherent and hence the prosecution was guilty of introducing distorted version before the Court about the place of occurrence which had not been established by cogent evidence. The credibility of Jagdish Roy (PW -3) and Rajendra Rai (PW -4) also was sought to be impeached on premises that as their evidences suffer major contradictions from the basic facts of the prosecution case, they were not worthy of credence. It is urged that if Jagdish Rai (PW -3) was to be given credence that Bachi Devi and Rajdeo Ram were available in the Palani of Lai Babu Mian and they were not apprehended by the villagers, that runs counter to the prosecution case. Next in quick succession, it urged that if evidence of Rajendra Rai (PW -4) was to be accepted true on its face value, only Rajdeo Ram was found at the Palani of Lal Babu Mian. The learned Counsel would urge that though the witnesses had been narrating before the Court that preceding the incident, Baiju Rai claimed to have witnessed Bachi Devi and Rajdeo Ram gossiping in the field, but such assertion was conspicuously wanting in the statement of the victim girl and lastly it is urged that Bachi Devi had excluded presence of even her brother when she along with Rajdeo Ram was shown to have been apprehended. The learned Counsel laying stress on the long prosecution of the appellant for about 12 years, would urge that since the appellant has suffered torture of the prosecution for such a long period, he deserves leniency on that count in the matter of sentence also.