CHADPAN MANJHI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellant/convicted accused is challenging the Judgment and Order dtd. 9/1/2014 and 10/1/2014 respectively passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Munger, in Sessions Case No.867 of 2012 between the parties by which he is convicted of the offences punishable under Ss. 302, 376 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant/convicted accused is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and in addition, he is directed to pay fine of Rs.5000.00. For the offence punishable under Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code, he is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life apart from payment of fine of Rs.5000.00. For the offence punishable under Sec. 201 of the Indian Penal Code, he is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for three years apart from payment of fine of Rs.1000.00. Substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently. For the sake of convenience, the appellant shall be referred to as "an accused".

(2.) Facts in brief leading to the prosecution of the accused can be summarized thus:

(3.) We heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused. In the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, medical evidence adduced by the prosecution is not reflecting commission of rape and none of the prosecution witnesses has seen the accused committing rape on the victim female child. In fact, none of the witnesses examined by the prosecution are eye witnesses to the alleged incident. They are related to the deceased and are interested witnesses. It is further argued that even the spot Panchnama was not recorded. The case of murder of the victim was in fact the case of honour killing. The prosecution has not even alleged love affair between the accused and the victim and as such there was no reason with the accused to kill the victim. There were no scratch marks or the nail marks on the dead body. It is further argued that there was a distance between the Panchayat Bhawan and the field where the incident took place and the prosecution has not explained as to why the victim should go at such a long distance. No lady from the village is examined by the prosecution. To buttress its submission, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has placed reliance on K.T. Palanisamy Versus State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases 100 and it is argued that when all prosecution witnesses are related to the deceased, their versions cannot be accepted. Reliance is also placed on Chandan Kumar Sah Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2018(1) PLJR 661, wherein the Division Bench of this Court found the prosecution case suspects when no external injury was found on the victim's body in a case of gang rape. In that case, the appellants/accused were not examined by the Doctor. They were acquitted by giving benefit of doubt.