OM PRAKASH GIRI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts the case are tell a tale. While Suganti Kumari had gone to the field in the company of her playmate Reena Kumari for plucking vegetable, the appellant allegedly having lifted her, took her to the nearby Rahar filed, thrashed her on the ground, got her naked and violated her person, having gagged her mouth to prevent her scream- ings being audible to any one. Since father of the victim had gone outside the village for his livelihood, the prosecution could be launched against the appellant only on his arrival after 3/4 days of the incident. The police on being moved on behest of father of the victim, came in action, instituted a regular police case against the appellant, took up investigation and in course of collection of evidence, recorded statement of witnesses, got the victim's statement recorded by a Magistrate under Section 164, Cr. PC, referred her to doctor for clinical examination, seized blood stained wearing apparels of the victim from custody of her father and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge-sheet before the Court. In the eventual trial that followed, the State examined ten witnesses. Since accusation attributed to him had been resisted by the appellant, three witnesses came to be examined on his behalf, ostensibly to counter accusations attributed to him. Those who were examined at trial by the State include the victim, her parents X-ray technician, the doctor who clinically examined the victim, the Police Officer and other host of witnesses.

(2.) The defence of the appellant had been that of innocence, and false case having been foisted against him for some dispute but without good excuse.

(3.) Three fold contentions were raised on behalf of the appellant and foremost of them was non-examination of Reena Kumari, the playmate of the victim who was the sole ocular witness to the sufferings and onslaught suffered by Suganti Kumari. Though said Reena Kumari was not examined, Manti Devi, mother of the victim, who happens to be PW 3, had expressly stated' at trial about information of sexual assault on Suganti Kumari by the appellant having been rendered to her by said Reena Kumari. Since there are good and unimpeachable evidence including that of the finding recorded by the doctor who clinically examined the victim eloquently suggesting sexual assault on the victim, non-examination Reena Kumari had little bearing on the case.