SK GHUGHLA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants along with Sk. Sabral Mian were tried for offences punishable under Sections 366. 342. 368 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the trial Court finding no good evidence against Sk. Sabral Mian, while acquitted him of the charges under Section 368 of the Indian Penal Code finding the appellants guilty under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years. The appellants were found guilty also under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years. They also suffered conviction under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months with a direction that all the sentences, shall run concurrently.

(2.) The factual matrix are that on 13th November, 1983 Bulanti Devi (PW 1) went to village Tilathi from her parental house in the company of wife of one Deonarain Singh of village Jhakhargarh to secure money and during her retreat to village Jhakhargarh, she was allegedly intercepted by four Muslim women near Rajwara village, who took her to the house of one Mehdi Mukhiya where 5 or 6 persons having emerged from the house, dragged her to a room and confined her therein. She claimed to have identified the appellants amongst them. It was alleged that during her confinement in the room of Mehdi Mukhiya, Sheikh Gogla (Ghughala) committed rape on her. In the following morning, it was alleged that the appellants and three unidentified persons took her to Chhatarpur on a rickshaw and from there she was taken to Madhepura by bus, and in the house of one Muslim lawyer she was kept in the night and in the following morning the said Muslim lawyer secured her thumb impression on a plain paper. Again on the following day, it was alleged by her that those who brought her to the lawyer, took her to Pratapganj on a bus and from there she went to Narahia Chhatarpur on foot where she was kept in a house of one Sabral Mian, There too she alleged to have been confined for three days where also Sheikh Gogla committed rape on her. It was only after arIlVal of Ramjee and Yagu Singh that she was rescued from the house arid with these narrations, fardbeyan of Bulanti Devi was recorded by Sri V.N. Pandey, Sublnspector of Police on 20th November, 1983 at village Jhakhargarh which forms basis of the first information report drawn up at Chhatarpur Police Station, The investigation commenced 2nd during investigation, the police recorded statement of witnesses, got the prosecutrix clinically examined by a doctor and on conclusion of investigation laid chargesheet before the Court. The appellants along with Sabral Mian on being committed to the Court of Sessions were eventually put on trial. In the eventual trial, the prosecution examined altogether five witnesses including prosecutrix, doctor. Ramjee Singh, Fagu Singh and one formal witness. There was nothing material in the evidence of PW 5, that did not require consideration.

(3.) Coming to the evidence of the prosecutrix, she was reiterating her early version with some variations, in the Court about she having been dragged to the house of Mehdi Mukhiya on way to her house while coming from Tilathi where she was taken by Muslim females and was subjected to rape by both Gogla and Rasnu Mian. The narration made by her in Court about she having been taken to Chhatarpur and from there to Madhepura where she was allegedly confined in, the house of the Muslim lawyer was also reiteration of her early version. Similarly, her evidence about she having been taken to Narahiya Chhatarpur and her confinement in the house of one Sabral Mian where too she was subjected to sexual assault by the appellants are more or less in similar terms as that of her fardbeyan, which was recorded by the police at her village. Ramjee Singh (PW 2) and Fagu Singh (PW 3) did not lend assurance to the prosecution allegation and turned volte face to the State. Dr. Maya Pandey (PW 4) recorded a positive finding that though prosecutrix was habituated to sexual intercourse, in the vaginal swab, no spermatozoa was noticed. The doctor, however, failed to record any positive finding about commission of sexual intercourse on the prosecutrix. This is all the evidence that has been adduced on behalf of the prosecution to lend assurance to the prosecution allegation.