SANJAYYADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appeals which arise from a common judgment dated 5.8.2000 rendered in Sessions Trial No. 76 of 1997 by Additional Sessions Judge I, Katihar were heard together and are being disposed of by this order.

(2.) THE appellants along with Pratima Devi were tried for the offence under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants went for trial also under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court, however, for paucity of evidence against Pratima Devi, while acquitted her of the charge, rendered verdict of guilt against the appellants and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The appellants were also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ - each on that count, in default of which they were to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The trial court found appellants guilty also under Section 450 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and also to pay a fine Of Rs. 1000/ - each on that count, in default of which they were to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months with a direction that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

(3.) NOW adverting to the evidences placed on the record, one would find Asha Kumari P.W. 2, who was the author of the fardbeyan narrating her woes before the court with some variations which she rendered before the police. She would narrate before the court that in the night of the incident when she was along with Manju Devi in the house, at the dead of night, some one knocked the door and gave push, when the door planks got broken. She got awakened and noticed Anirudh Yadav and one another person in her house. Since other person who was accompanied by Anirudh Yadav had covered his face with cloth, she failed to identify him. The allegation attributed to Anirudh Yadav was that shortly after he gained access in the room, began to tease Manju Devi. She was however lifted by other unidentified person to the house of Anirudh Yadav, where she was ravished. When she came back to her house, noticed Manju Devi only with inner garment who inter alia disclosed her about Anirudh Yadav having committed sexual assault on her. Thereafter, both of them went to the house of Sahdeo Yadav and narrated their woes to his wife who supplied clothes to them to cover their persons and for the rest of the night they remained in her house. After her father came back to her house, she stated to have narrated her woes to him, pursuant to which she took recourse to police and rendered her statement giving full particulars of the incident. The Police Officer seized their wearing apparels which bore blood stains and also the sign of some liquid for which seizure memo was prepared. The narrations made by Manju Devi RW. 1 are more or less in similar terms with variation of complicity of Sanjay Yadav. She would state before the court that while she along with Asha Kumari was fast asieep in the house, some one knocked the door when door plank was broken. It was Anirudh Yadav who along with an unidentified person gained his access in her room and began to tease her. After she resorted to protest, Anirudh Yadav gagged her mouth and committed sexual assault on her. About Asha Kumari she would allege that a person who was accompanied by Anirudh Yadav lifted Asha Kumari and took her out of the room. She would state that despite all resistance made by her, she was ravished by Anirudh Yadav. After Anirudh Yadav had left the hosue, Asha Kumari came naked with blood stains on her wearing apparels. When her father -in -law came she narrated her woes to him and she would also state about their stay in the night in the house of Sahdeo Yadav who gave clothes to them to cover their persons. Urmiia Devi P.W. 3 wife of Sahdeo Yadav turned volte face to the prosecution and would show ignorance about Asha Kumari and Manju Devi having visited her house and narrating their woes to her. Umesh Lal Yadav P.W. 4 had lent assurance to the incident about committing sexual assault on Asha Kumari and Manju Devi. He would further make an explicit accusation against Anirudh Yadav alone who was suggested to have committed sexual assault on Manju Devi. Dr. Minni Rani RW. 5 stated to have clinically examined both the prosecutrix and would state that while on the private part of Asha Kumari she noticed some injury, there was no mark of physical violence on the person of Manju Devi though her old torn hymen was found ruptured. No spermatozoa was, however, seen in the swab. This is all the evidence that has been adduced on behalf of the prosecution.