BRAJ BHUSHAN PODDAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment dated 18.9.2000 passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai, in Cr. Appeal No. 59/97. The revisionist was convicted by the trial Court for the offence under Section 376/511 I.P.C. and he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years. The appellate Court confirmed this order of conviction and the sentence recorded by the trial Court.

(2.) No body appeared when the revision was called out for hearing. Under Section 403 Code of Criminal Procedure this Court is not under any obligation to wait indefinitely for the revisionist's lawyer for appearance to argue this case. On perusal of the judgment of the trial Court and the appellate Court, it appears that the revisionist was prosecuted for committing a carnal offence upon the minor girl in absence of her family members. The evidence depended on the testimony of the victim girl herself and the circumstances under which she was found in her house. When the informant returned she (the victim) was found bleeding from her vagina and she was unconscious and she was shorn of her under-garment. The Courts below relied on the testimony of the victim girl inspite of the fact that the doctor had not been examined and I.O. had also not been examined. In the memo of the revisionist it has been stated that in absence of any independent witness and in absence of the I.O.'s evidence as also in absence of the doctor's evidence the Court should not have convicted the accused-revisionist. In the memo of revision it was also stated that the trial Court disbelieved the allegation of rape. So, the appellate Court should not have confirmed the judgment of the trial Court.

(3.) I find that neither the judgment of the trial Court nor the same of the appellate Court suffers from any illegality or misappreciation of the evidence on record. There is no mis-application of procedural law in conducting the trial as well. So far the finding that the revisionist was not guilty of rape rather guilty of the offence of attempted rape, I am of the opinion that the findings of the Courts below are based on evidence. I need not comment further upon the finding which was recorded on the evidence on record, but I am of the opinion that the contention that no order of conviction can be recorded in absence of doctor and I.O.'s evidence is not acceptable and I am of the opinion that to hold any person guilty of the offence, as alleged, the Court may rely on the testimony of the victim herself corroborated by her family members who found her in the condition as stated above. So far the delay in lodging the F.I.R. is concerned, it has been explained that there was an attempt of panchayati and the panches had directed the revisionist to leave the place where he was living as a tenant. When he did not comply with the same, there was public outcry as a result of which the case was lodged. The delay in lodging the F.I.R. has properly been explained.