PARWEZ ANSARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, appellant/convicted accused Parwez Ansari is challenging the judgment and order dtd. 1/6/2013 and 7/6/2013 respectively passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur, thereby convicting him of the offences punishable under Sec. 376(2)(i)(j) and Sec. 354A of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sec. 3(1)(xi) and Sec. 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. For the offence punishable under Sec. 376(2)(i)(j) of the Indian Penal Code, he is sentence to suffer imprisonment for life apart from imposition of fine of Rs.50,000.00 and default sentence of five years. No separate sentence was imposed on him for the offence punishable under Sec. 354A of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence punishable under Sec. 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the appellant/accused is sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for fiver years. For the offence punishable under Sec. 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, he is sentence to suffer imprisonment for life. Substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently by the learned trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the appellant shall be referred to in his original capacity as an accused.

(2.) Facts leading to the prosecution of the accused projected from the police report can be summarized thus:-

(3.) We heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused. He vehemently argued that though the incident is stated to have been witnessed by number of people, the prosecution has not examined any independent witnesses residing in the houses located near the house of the victim. It is further argued that the victim, according to the prosecution case, had taken medical treatment at the hospital at Mohiuddin Nagar. However, papers of that medical treatment are not produced and the Medical Officer of that hospital is not examined. The medical evidence regarding medical examination of the accused is not favouring the prosecution. It is further argued that the doctor, who informed the incident to the police station is not examined by the prosecution. It is further argued that the place of the occurrence is not proved as different witnesses are pointing it out differently. According to the learned Advocate for the appellant, case of the prosecution is not reliable as witnesses who were sitting at the Aanganwari were not knowing anything about the incident and even PW 4 Ramdev has stated name of the accused as 'Awed. ' It is further argued that the evidence of the victim female child is contrary to her version found in her statement under Sec. 164 of the Cr.P.C. As against this, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and order.