BIBI NOORI KHATOON Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) against acquittal arising from Katihar. Respondent No 2, who is aged about 60 years, was charged with an offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). The rest of the respondents had been charged under Sections 380, 452/34 of IPC. The trial Court has acquitted all the respondents in respect of all the charges.

(2.) This appeal is by the prosecutrix who is PW 6. Upon considering the evidence, the trial Court has acquitted and we having heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length and having perused the judgment as well as the depositions as produced by her in course of hearing do not consider it a proper case to interfere. In our view, the trial Court has not committed any illegality or perversity in either receiving evidence or considering the same. We are of the view that the order, as passed by the trial Court, was a just and proper order. It is alleged that the occurrence of rape took place at 6 pm on 22.11.2005 behind a Masjid immediately after Namaz. It is said that PW 6, the appellant and the prosecutrix was raped in full public view by respondent No 2 who, as noted above, would be 60 years old then. PW 1 is the brother-in-law of the prosecutrix. He admits that he was ten steps away and saw the whole incident for about five minutes without protest. He admits that he did not narrate this incident to anybody. PW 2 is the elder brother of the prosecutrix husband. He is also a silent spectator and does nothing to stop the activity. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that they are four brothers and wives of all of them had lodged rape cases. He admits that he took no steps to rescue the victim and watched the whole affair for about three to five minutes. PW 3 is the only independent witness who turns hostile. PW 4 is the father-in-law of prosecutrix who also is a silent spectator to the entire event as if watching a film. PW 5 is also a related brother of the prosecutrix who is also a silent spectator enjoying the whole scene and making no efforts to stop the event. Now we come to PW 6, the prosecutrix-appellant herself. She states that respondent No 2 raped her and upon hulla, the other witnesses turned up. In her cross-examination, she has admitted the close relationship, as disclosed above. In her cross- examination, she admits that though the incident took place on 22.11.2005, she made no report thereof to the police or to the local Mukhiya or to anyone else. It is for the first time on 29.11.2005, she files a criminal complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on basis of which this trial commences. She admits that she did not even care to get herself medically examined at any point of time. She had alleged that the other respondents raided her house and beat her up, stole her properties but no details thereof could be furnished nor was any injury report produced. What is now material that in her cross-examination, in paragraph-10, she admits that a rape case had been filed against her husband about six days prior to this case in which respondent No 2 was a witness. It is respondent No 2 who is charged with rape in this case. There were other witnesses in that case who have been made accused here.

(3.) We, accordingly, find no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed.