DHIRU SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of the case are tell -e -tell. Ranjana Bhattacharya alias Babli (P.W. 15), who was prosecuting her studies at Calcutta (Kolkatta), came down to her parents and was living in a quarter at Sonepur, allotted to her father, who was working in a Locoshed, .Railways, Sonepur. As usual, mother used to go to school where she was a mistress but one day when she had gone to school with her other children, leaving Babli alone in the quarters, she was found missing. It is alleged that when the father came to the quarter, he found the quarter locked and the worried father could not find details of whereabout of Babli, even from his wife. The quarter was found locked and key of the lock was supplied to him by his neighbour who told that Babli had gone out with the appellant entrusting him the key of the quarters and with these accusations, the first information report was lodged wih the Police to set it in motion which followed investigation, and during investigation, the Police recorded statements of a number of witnesses including, that of the victim, got her clincally examined by the doctor, inspected the place of occurrence and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge sheet before the Court, pursuant to which the appellant along with others on being committed to the Court of Sessions, was put on trial. While the appellant was charged under sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code simpliciter, others, who are not the appellants, were also charged with the same offence at trial, that commenced against them.

(2.) NOW , adverting to the evidence placed on record, one would find Srimati Bina Bhattacharya (P. W. 10), reiterating her early version which she rendered before the Police about Ranjana 4/1/2013 Page 111 Karu Mian Alias Md.Karu,Gul Mohammad,Amina Khatoon Versus State Of Bihar Bhattacharya alias Babli, a minor girl, missing from the quarter, after she left her alone in the quarter to attend school with her children. The prosecution examined Nikhil Bhattacharya (P.W. 2), father of the victim girl and similar narrations were made by him about he having found the quarter locked and Babli missing from there. He would state that the key of the lock was supplied to him by a neighbour. The witness would state that one Vishwanath Singh had been frequently coercing and hurling threats, to get Ranjana Bhattacharya married with the appellant, else that will lead to a disastrous result. The age of the victim girl has been stated by the father as about 17 -18 years. Now, adverting to the testimony of Ranjana Bhattacharya (P.W. 15), who happened to be the victim, one would find her narrating that the appellant had been transmitting letters to her, preceding the incident, and had been hurling threats not to disclose to her parents, receipt of the letters by her allegedly written by him, else her younger sister would be kidnapped. She would state that he had been forcing her to write letters to her parents expressing her desire to marry the appellant. The victim would state that on the day of incident, the appellant came to her and putting her in fear of death, forced her to accompany him and also got one letter (Exhibit 3) written by her. The victim would state her woes making narration, inter alia, that she was taken to various places by the appellant and others including Jasidih, Bokaro, Patna and Hajipgr where he stayed with the victim in hotel at Hajipur. He married her, contrary to her will and eventually ravished her. Her statement was also recorded by a magistrate under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She was also clinically examined by the doctor.

(3.) ), who was a neighbour, about one person having taken Babli in his company on a tempo, though the witness would not claim identification of the male member. While Manoj Kumar (P.W. 5) was tendered by the prosecution, Yogendra Baitha (P.W. 6) simply stated to have learnt about the appellant having taken the victim girl with him. Other witnesses is Babita Bhattacharya, younger sister of the victim, and she happens to be P.W. 7. She would state that while her mother had been to the school and Babli was alone in the quarter, she came to know that one person had come and taken Babli in his company. She stated to have noticed the appellant in the quarter even preceding the date of incident. Thekani Mahto (P.W. 8) turned volte face to the State, while Baikunth Prasad (P.W. 9) was a formal witness and there was nothing in his evidence to merit consideration. Manowar Hussain (P.W. 11) was the manager of Sheeshmahal Hotel and his evidence was that a lady had come with a male member for stay in the hotel. This witness too was declared hostile by the State. Since Baikunth Prasad (P.W. 12) was not cross examined by the defence, his evidence did not merit consideration. Shri Amlendu Kumar Sinha (P.W. 16) was magistrate who stated to have recorded statement of the victim girl under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Shri Shambhu Nath Singh Veer (P.W. 17) happened to be the Investigating Officer of the case who stated to have recorded statement of the mother of the victim, got the statement of the victim girl recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedurre by a magistrate, apprehended the victim girl with the appellant, got the victim examined by the doctor and on conclusion of the investigation, laid charge sheet before the Court. The last witness Bageshwari Roy (P.W. 18) was also a formal witness and there was nothing material in his evidence to merit consideration. Dr Rajeshwar Triwari (P.W. 13) was a Radiologist who recorded his finding in his report Exhibit 7, about assessment of the age of the victim girl on the strength of X -ray plate which are exhibits 8 and 8/1 and the doctor assessed age of the victim below 18 years. The other doctor examined by the State was Dr. (Mrs) Bimla Sahi (RW. 14) who too assessed age of the victim below 18 years. Though the doctor did not find evidence of external or internal violence or injury on the person of the victim, she noticed her hymen old -ruptured. Though there 4/1/2013 Page 112 Karu Mian Alias Md.Karu,Gul Mohammad,Amina Khatoon Versus State Of Bihar was no spermatozoa in the swab, the doctor was of the opinion that the victim was used to intercourse, as there was ruptured hymen. 4. The defence too examined two witnesses including one Baban Prasad Sinha, Advocate (D.W. 1), who brought an affidavit allegedly sworn in by the victim, on record. The other witness examined by the defence was Dr. Ram Bachan Thakur (D.W. 2), who stated to have assessed the age of the victim to be about 20 years. This is all the evidence adduced on behalf of the State and the appellant.