JINISH LAL SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was a teacher who used to coach prosecutrix Geeta Kumari, and her sister at the latters residence. As usual, on 30th April, 1989, appellant Jinish Lal Sah came to the house of Geeta Kumari and on some pretext or other, told that he would not teach them that day and retired from the place on a motorcycle. Be it a coincidence, Geeta Kumari left her house to watch a film on TV in the neighbours house, who was none else but her grandfather Gajendra Prasad Singh. She noticed the appellant standing when the latter made inquiry from her about the object she was going, and after Geeta Kumari told him that she was going to watch a film in the neighbours house, the appellant informed that TV of her neighbour had gone out of order. Shortly thereafter, it is alleged that he proposed her to accompany him to go to Sitamarhi for witnessing a film and having prevailed upon her, he caught hold of her hands and made her seated on his motorcycle. The appellant, however, proceeded on the motorcycle towards Muzaffarpur and on inquiry being made by Geeta Kumari, asked her to be quiet, or she might be killed the appellant assured her that after witnessing the film, he would take her to her house. However, it did not so happen, as the appellant on reaching Muzaffarpur entrusted his motorcycle to a person and took Geeta Kumari to Jasidish and thereafter to Baidyanath Dham. It was alleged that the appellant took her in a room and forced her to marry him which was spurned by her. She alleged that the appellant on a letter addressed to himself obtained her signature and, on confining her in a room, ravished her. She was kept in the room till 8th May, 1989 pursuant to which she was taken to Bazitpur, from where the appellant hails, on 9th May, 1989. Allegations were also attributed to the appellant that he took out golden necklace from her neck.

(2.) THE parents of the girl, finding her missing from the house, took recourse to Police authority on 1st May, 1989 and on activation of the Police, Geta Kumari was recovered from the house of the appellant on 10th May, 1989 by Shri Anand Prakash Singh, Officer Incharge, Dumra Police Station, who happens to be P.W. 12 of the case. After the Police was set in motion by the father of the prosecutrix, the investigation commenced and in process of collection of evidence during investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded statement of witnesses including that of the prosecutrix, got her clinically examined by the doctor, collected evidence about recovery of the prosecutrix from the house of the appellant and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge sheet before the Court, pursuant to which on case being committed to the Court of Session, the appellant was put on trial.

(3.) DEFENCE of the appellant was that of false implication and further defence, as emerging from the suggestion given to the witnesses and also statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would unerringly suggest that as the prosecutrix was trading love affairs with one paramour, who eventually betrayed her, only to take shelter, had gone to the house of the appellant when she was recovered by the Police.