DHEERAJ MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Chandra Bhushan Prasad, learned A.P.P. for the State through virtual court proceedings.

(2.) In compliance of the order dtd. 8/2/2022, Shri Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Chandra Bhushan Prasad, learned A.P.P. for the State were physically present in the residential chamber on 9/2/2022 at 5:00 pm. In presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State, the video footage in pen drive sent along with the counter affidavit was viewed and from the video footage, it can be culled out that the victim and one boy (not the petitioner) were seen in a semi-nude condition and further it appeared from the video footage that the victim and boy were known to each other and were caught by the villagers as they were indulging in an inappropriate act. Further, the video footage did not even remotely suggested or reflected that the victim was ravaged/raped by five men including the petitioner, rather the victim appeared very normal. From the video footage what could be gathered was that the victim along with the boy seen in the video were caught by the villagers and they were reprimanding them for bringing disrepute to the village.

(3.) The pen drive was made available to the prosecution and is part of the F.I.R. also and thus is part of the investigation, since the pen drive formed part of the investigation then definitely the same would have been viewed by the Investigating Officer and the Superintendent of Police, West Champaran for arriving at a conclusion that as to whether the occurrence as alleged in the F.I.R. had taken place or not. After seeing the video footage it prima facie appears to the Court that the victim was not raped subject to what the Superintendent of Police and the Investigating Officer have to submit.