BRIJ BHUSHAN PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. The Appellants have been convicted under Sections 376 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code by Sessions Judge of Bhojpur at Arrah in Sessions Trial No. 445 of 1987 by a Judgment dated 19.3.1994 and sentenced them to ten years rigorous imprisonment under both the Sections separately but to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case is that Sunaina Devi (PW -1) was sleeping in her house in the night of 17.10.1982 when suddenly the accused persons forcibly entered into the house and committed robbery as also dragged her and her sister -in - law Bishendra Devi (PW -2) to the Court -yard and raped her. The next morning, the present case was instituted and the investigation ensued.

(3.) The prosecution to prove his case examined as many as seven witnesses out of whom PW -1 and PW -2 are alleged victims whereas PW -3 is the mother of the Informant and PW -4 and 5 are two brothers. PW -6 is the Doctor who examined PW -1 and 2 and PW -7 is the Investigating Officer of the Case. During trial, PW -1 and 2 were both specific about allegations that the accused persons had committed rape upon them and there was no discrepancy in their evidence. The Investigating Officer who investigated the case of the prosecution also found that both the planks of the house were tampered and also that the locks of her room were broken and articles were scattered around. The most incriminating thing is that he observed that articles such as broken Bangles were found at the place of occurrence where the victims were ganged rape. The rest of the witnesses have also fully supported the prosecution case and there is no glaring discrepancy in their evidence on material particulars. No doubt, the Doctor (PW -6) has given ambiguous evidence with regard to the commission of rape but this Court and Appex Court had repeatedly held that if the ocular evidence of the victim itself inspired confidence, there is no need for further corroboration of medical injuries. In view of the consistent cogent and trustworthy evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, the Appeal is dismissed. However, they are sentenced to a period already undergone by them.