NANDU THAKUR AND ORS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have been found guilty for offences under Section376/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years by the 2 nd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Motihari in Sessions Trial No. 231 of 1997.

(2.) The prosecution has examined ten witnesses in order to support the case made out in the First Information Report. P.W. 7 is the doctor in this case. P.W. 8 is the Judicial Magistrate whereas, P.W. 9 is the second Investigating Officer in this case, but his evidence is not important because he has not conducted the investigation. P.W. 10 is the Advocate's Clerk who has proved the hand writing of the Officer Incharge. Paragraph Nos. 1 to 63 has been marked as Ext. 5 by the prosecution as the Investigating Officer in this case could not be examined.

(3.) The defence of the accused is complete denial of the occurrence. It is their specific case that the witnesses P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 6 have enmity with the appellants who have filed two cases against them or their family members and as such the informant has been set up to lodge this completely false case. There are two statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in this case. One recorded on 19.9.1995 and the other recorded on 14.5.1996. The statement given by the victim lady on 19.9.1995 has been marked as Ext. 2 on behalf of the prosecution whereas, the second statement has been marked as Ext. B on behalf of the defence. The Judicial Magistrates who had recorded the statement have also been examined as witnesses. In the first statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the victim lady supports the prosecution version and states that she had been raped by the aforesaid persons. In the second statement, the victim lady had stated that she had compromised the matter and Nandu Thakur's name has been included at the instance of the police officer and that the case has been filed because of the pressure of certain persons. In Court, her evidence is quite contrary to the statement that she has made under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the Court will rely on the statement in Court to test the credibility of the case made out by the prosecution.