BALLAM BHARTI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STATEMENT/fardbeyan of Jamwanti Devi one of the victims has been made basis for lodging the F.I.R. which in short is that in the night of 30.8.1997 at about 10.30 PM she was sleeping in her room along with her husband Lallan Ravidas which was opened and it was raining also. Her brother-in-law (Dewar) was sleeping with his wife in another room. Other family members were sleeping in different rooms. Her father-in-law, mother- in-law and Nanad had gone to sleep in the house of Kesar Ravidas (P.W.2). It is alleged that 3-4 persons entered her room, tied her husband's hands, took him to another room and bolted there. It is further alleged that two persons again entered her room and committed rape upon her after giving threatening to her life. After leaving her room by miscreants, she (informant) came out from her room and found her husband and Dewar Shankar Ravidas confined in the room of Sheobarat Ravidas. She opened his room which was bolted from outside, untied hands of her husband and Dewar. In the meantime, Peyari Devi also came and reported that five of the accused persons had committed rape upon her after giving threatening to her life and taken away her ornaments and it is said that her husband Lallan Ravidas had identified Vijay Yadav, Udai Pandit, Kuldip Yadav and son of Lucha Yadav, all of village Kukiasin. Her Dewar and grand father-in-law have also identified the above miscreants. It is further alleged that she heard that above miscreants had committed some crime in the house of Kasturi Manjhi.

(2.) THE trial ended in conviction and sentence to accused appellants for the offence under sections 376(2)(g) wrongly mentioned in the judgment "(G)", 324/34 and 450/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3(1)(x) (xii) of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act wrongly mentioned in the judgment of the trial court as 3(x)(xi) & (xii) of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by passing the impugned judgment and order validity of which has been questioned through filing these appeals.

(3.) P.W.2 is stating about his coming from Sasural next day of the incident and hearing about taking place of the incident of theft and commitment of rape, same is repeated by P.W.3 also. P.Ws 4 and 8 are stating about hearing of commitment of rape upon Peyari Devi and Jamwanti Devi. P.Ws 3 and 4 have been declared hostile, cross-examined by the prosecution but all these witnesses i.e. P.Ws 2 to 4 are of no avail for the prosecution in either way to believe or disbelieve the prosecution case. This much is the result of hostile and hearsay witnesses.