BAIDYA NATH YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole appellant suffered conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years on that count.

(2.) THE factual matrix are that on 17th March, 1997, in the morning hours, while Chunia Kumari (P.W. 10) had been to the field for cutting grass, the appellant gagged her mouth with a piece of cloth, made her naked and ravished her despite all resistehce made by her. Thereafter, appellant left the place and victim on coming back to her house, narrated her woes to her mother. A panchayati was convened in the village to resolve the dispute but since the decision taken in the panchayati was not acceptable to the appellant, she took recourse to the police and with these narrations, the first information report was drawn up at Madhepur Police Station on the following day of the incident and the investigation commenced. During investigation, all processes for conclusion of the investigation were taken by the Investigating Officer, who recorded statements of the witnesses, got the victim clinically examined by the doctor and eventually laid chargesheet before the Court. The appellant on being committed to the Court of Session, was put on trial. In the eventual trial, the prosecution examined altogether ten witnesses including the prosecutrix, her mother, family members, and persons who participated in the panchayati, and the trial court placing implicit reliance on the testimony of witnesses while negatived defence raised on behalf of the appellant about his innocence, found the appellant guilty and sentenced him in the manner stated above.

(3.) THE findings recorded by the trial court was sought to be assailed by the learned counsel for the appellant on premises that though finding of guilt was recorded by the trial court on twin grounds, namely, accusations attributed to him and also extra -judicial confession said to have been made by the appellant, however, it would appear from the evidence of Mahavir Sah (P.W. 6) that shortly after panchayati was convened, appellant began to abuse the punches. Contentions were raised that it is quite unlikely that the appellant who would abuse the punches, would admit his guilt and make extra -judicial confession acknowledging the accusations made to him. The learned counsel would urge that though P.W. 6 and P.W. 9 were stating about extra -judicial confession shown to have been made by the appellant, their evidences would not inspire confidence in view of the strained relation between the parties. Yet it is urged that though a large number of persons were shown to have participated in the panchayati, non of them except P.W. 9 would lend assurance to the prosecution version on this score and in quick succession it is urged that even Suresh Yadav (P.W. 4) and Laxman Yadav (P.W. 3), who were shown to be the punches, had turned volte -face to the prosecution. The next limb of the argument on behalf of the appellant was that as the doctor, who is said to have clinically examined the victim, was not examined by the State, the defence finding no option, examined the doctor as a defence witness and if his evidence is taken into consideration to judge the guilt attributed to the appellant, that would unerringly suggest that the doctor stated to have not noticed any positive evidence about commission of sexual assault on the victim. Non - examination of the Investigating Officer was also taken by the learned counsel for the appellant, as one of the grounds on which the bona fide of the prosecution is to be assailed and lastly, some discrepant statements made by the witnesses were also sought to be highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellant.