MEENA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS usual, while Pratibha Kumari, a thirteen years old girl, had been to Vanita Vihar School, her classmate Neelam took her to her residence where her mother Meena Devi seemed to be quite hospitable to her. Allegedly Meena Devi and Manoj Kumar, the appellants took her to Danapur where she was confined for more than a fortnight for sex affairs. She was, thereafter, taken by Manoj Kumar to his house at Bidupur. However, it was alleged that Manoj Kumar after 3/4 days informed her parents, pursuant to which she was rescued and brought to her house from Bidupur. It was the prosecutrix on whose behest prosecution was launched, pursuant to which, as usual, investigation followed. In course of investigation the Police Officer visited different places of occurrence, recorded statement of witnesses, got the prosecutrix clinically examined by the doctor and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge -sheet before the Court. In the eventual trial that followed, the State examined five witnesses including prosecutrix, her mother, other witness of her family, doctor and the Police Officer.

(2.) THE defence of the appellants both before the Court below and this Court had been that of innocence and they ascribed their false implication. Two fold defence had been put up at trial on behalf of appellants. It was pleaded that the prosecutrix was a lady of easy virtue which was also source of livelihood of her mother. Other defence was that as Manoj Kumar and Meena Devi had registered protest against unholy conduct of Avinash Kumar who had been exploiting the girl and blackmailing her, a false case had been registered against them for no good reasons. However, the defence had not chosen to examine any witness to strengthen assertion made on their behalf at trial. The trial Judge on evaluating the probative value of testimony of witnessed while rejecting defence of the appellants, recorded finding of guilt and sentenced the appellants to rigorous imprisonment for a term of ten years under both counts under Sections 366 -A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code with a rider that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

(3.) THE Police Officer stated to have came into action shortly on receipt of a written complaint by the prosecutrix when statement of witnesses were recorded and prosecutrix were clinically examined by the doctor. The doctor who examined the prosecutrix, in pathelogical report found her 17 years of age and though he did not notice evidence of commission of recent sexual assault on the prosecutrix, he could not rule out commission of sexual assault, there being old rupture of hymen. This is all the evidence that has been placed on the record on behalf of the State.