MOHAN OJHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant along with Dinesh Thakur was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on behest of Smt. Mridula Sinha (P.W. 2) with ac-cusation that in the night of 5-8-1988, after Om Kumar Singh found his younger brother Ranjit Kumar Singh,the victim, missing from the bed, he informed his mother who, it was alleged, along with her neighbour made hectic searches for Ranjit Kumar Singh when the latter came to them weeping on having come out from a thatched roofs house and disclosed the complicity of the petitioner and one Dinesh Thakur about commission of carnal intercourse with him against the order of nature. After the Police was set in motion, investigation commenced and in course of investigation, the Police Officer recorded statement of witnesses, got the victim examined by the Doctor, secured injury report, prepared a production list of the wearing apparel of the victim on its production by his mother, visited the place of occurrence and eventually laid charge-sheet before the Court.

(2.) In the eventual trial that commenced against the appellant and Dinesh Thakur, eight witnesses were examined by the State including victim Ranjit Kumar (P.W. 4), Mridula Sinha (P.W. 2) who happens to be the mother of the victim and also the person who set the Police in motion. The State has also examined Manmohan Singh (P.W. 3), who stated to have noticed Ranjit Kumar coming from the south direction and having disclosed complicity of the appellant alone about commission of unnatural offence on him. The State also examined Deo Narain Mishra (P.W. 6), who brought production list on the record, some formal witnesses, the Police Officer and also Dr. Mumtaz Ahmad (P.W. 5) who stated to have examined the victim along with Dr. Manoranjan Kumar and issued injury report.

(3.) Now, adverting to the evidences placed on record, Mridula Sinha (P.W. 2) had been reiterating her early version, which she had rendered before the Police about Ranjit Kumar having disclosed the complicity of the appellant and Dinesh Thakur in commission of unnatural offence on him, having removed him to a thatched roof house. Ranjit Kumar (P.W. 4) narrated in similar terms about he having been removed from his house by the appellant where carnal intercourse was committed against the order of nature on him both by the appellant and Dinesh Thakur. The Doctor who examined Ranjit Kumar, noticed that the anal margin was found bruised and inflamed and anal muscle was found dilated and tender to touch. The inside of rectum was found bruised and lacerated.