UPASI SADA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole appellant suffered conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on being tried by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Madhepura and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of seven years.

(2.) FACTUAL matrix centering round the prosecution case was that at about 5 p.m. on 28th March, 2000 while Bimal Devi (PW 4) was scrapping grass in the field, appellant came, tied her hands with a piece of cloth, thrashed her on the ground and violated her person despite all entities made by the prosecutrix. The victim narrated her woes to her mother and uncle, pursuant to which a panchayati was convened in the village but the appellant did not participate in the said panchayati. The prosecution was launched on behest of prosecutrix on 29th March, 2000, pursuant to which investigation followed. In course of investigation, Police Officer entrusted with onerous task of investigation, recorded statement of witnesses, visited place of occurrence, got prosecutrix clinically examined by the doctor and on conclusion of investigation laid charge sheet before the Court.

(3.) A brief resume of the narrations made by the prosecution witnesses may be brought on the record to appreciate contentions raised. Reiterating her earliest version, Bimal Devi (PW 4) stated at trial about appellant having committed sexual assault on her while she was scrapping grass in the field and also about narrating her woes to her family members. She states to have rendered her statement before the Police to set the Police in motion. Maya Devi (PW 3) happens to be mother of the prosecutrix who too was shortly informed by the prosecutrix about her woes and she states in Court in similar terms. Though doctor Dr. Saroj Singh (PW 7) who clinically examined the prosecutrix did not render any finding about there being any evidence of commission of sexual assault on the prosecutrix, had noticed old ruptured hymen. Abdul Kalam Khan (PW 5) the Sub -Inspector of Police stated that a Police case had been instituted on strength of written complaint of the prosecutrix. He recorded statement of witnesses, visited place of occurrence, got the prosecutrix clinically examined by the doctor and made over charge of investigation to his successor. Chandrika Prasad Singh (PW 6) simply states to have laid charge -sheet before the Court on strength of investigation concluded by his predecessor and it seems that he did not make any contribution towards investigation.