BHUNESHWAR YADAV @ BHUNESHWAR RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the conviction ordered by the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna on 07.05.1994 in Sessions Trial No. 522 of 1992 and sentencing him to life imprisonment for an offence under Section 376 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for an offence under section 450 of the Indian Penal Code, this appeal has been filed by the appellant.

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix was sleeping in her house at 1.30 in the afternoon on 30th March, 1992 on a cot in the chouki. She was disturbed by certain commotion that took place and when she woke up she saw the appellant herein who stayed nearby and identified standing near her. When she was about to raise an alarm he caught hold of her, took out a dagger, threatened her with it, closed her mouth with his hand, raised her shari and committed the offence in question. The incident took about 10 minutes. Thereafter she came out immediately, made a commotion, when people in the locality came they were informed about it and then she went to the police station and lodged the F.I.R. herself. The prosecutrix has been examined as PW 2 and she had narrated the story as detailed hereinabove and reported to the police. Her relative Gautam Kumar, PW 1 supports the story. Based on the aforesaid testimony the accused has been convicted. However, in the trial neither the lady doctor who examined the prosecutrix nor the Investigating Officer was examined. Inspite thereof, it is argued that the conviction was ordered on the basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. However, records indicated that during the pendency of the matter as ordered by this Court in this appeal, evidence of the lady doctor and the Investigating Officer were recorded. However, from the statement of the doctor which has now been recorded, after more than 22 years of the occurrence, it is seen that the doctor only speaks about having examined the victim, she does not find any mark of injury on her person and also does not give any definite opinion about rape having been committed. The incident is said have taken place on 30.03.1992 and the doctor is said to have examined the prosecutrix on the next day. Her evidence was recorded in the court after direction in the present appeal on 16.05.1995.

(3.) Learned counsel representing the appellant tried to argue that in the absence of strong evidence to show that the rape has been committed, conviction of the appellant-accused is not advisable. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State invites our attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Babulal, 2008 CrLJ 714, wherein it was held that if the evidence of the victim is straightforward and believable and if her statement inspires confidence of the Court then conviction solely based on the testimony of the victim can be made. In paragraph-14 in the aforesaid judgment earlier judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, 1983 3 SCC 217 and State of Rajasthan v. Narayan, 1992 3 SCC 615 have been relied upon and it has been held that the evidence of the prosecutrix is truthful, trustworthy and reliable and conviction can be recorded solely on the basis of her testimony and no further corroboration is necessary. In paragraph-15 another judgment of the Supreme Court is referred to and the finding recorded in paragraph-15 reads as follows:-