SANJAY KUMAR BHARTI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole Appellant Sanjay Kumar Bharati has been convicted under Sections 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case as per the written report of the informant is that on 15.8.1995 at 3.00 p.m. the Appellant, namely, Sanjay Kumar Bharati who was a tutor came at the residence of the informant and demanded Sarbat from the victim girl, namely, Kiran Kumari. It is alleged that the Appellant induced Kiran Kumari to go with him on false pretext. The family members were of the impression that the Appellant is teaching Kiran Kumari. After 10 to 15 minutes the informant 's eldest daughter, namely, Sweta went to serve tea to the Appellant and found the Appellant as well is Kiran Kumari missing from the room. So, she informed her mother about the missing of Kiran and a search was made but Kiran Kumari could not be traced. In course of search the informant went to Professor Dilip Kumar who happens to be the brother -in -law of the Appellant and learnt that the Appellant had come to his place at 3.20 p.m. and was in hurry and had disclosed to him that he is going to Patna for some urgent work. The Appellant was a teacher of Arya Bhatta Public School and used to teach the informant 'sdaughter since one and half years. The informant also went to Patna and enquired at Gyan Ganga Prakashan about the whereabout of the Appellant but could not get any trace of him. It is alleged that the Appellant eloped with the informant 'sdaughter with some ulterior motive. A case under Sections 363, 366, 366A of the Indian Penal Code was Instituted against the Appellant and after completing the investigation chargesheet was submitted against the Appellant and one of his associates under Sections 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of which cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions. It may be stated here that co -accused Jitendra Lal @ Lalla absconded in course of trial. So, the trial of the Appellant was separated after declaring Jitendra Kumar Lal as absconder.

(3.) THE prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses in the case out of whom P.W. 5 Dr. Suneela Singh is a lady doctor who had examined the victim girl on 22.8.95 and her evidence goes to show that on the day of examination of the victim girl her age was between 15 to 16 years and her hymen was torn and she was used to sexual intercourse. P.W. 5 has proved the medical report (Ext. 6) as also the X -ray plate (Ext. 7). It would thus appear from the evidence of P.W. 5 that on the day of her examination i.e. 22.8.95 the victim was a minor girl aged about 15 to 16 years.