Kalyan Paul @ Kalyan Pal vs State Of Jharkhand

Ambuj Nath, J

Petitioner-Kalyan Paul @ Kalyan Pal has filed this application against the judgment dated 28.06.2016, passed by Shri Kamal Kumar Srivastava, Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Giridih in Criminal Appeal No. 86/2012, whereby and whereunder, learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Giridih dismissed the appeal of the petitioner by upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.09.2012, passed by Shri Raj Narayan Mishra, Assistant Sessions Judge-I, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 215/2002 arising out of Town P.S. Case No. 227/2001 corresponding to G.R. No. 1685/2001, holding the petitioner guilty for the offences under section 323, 341 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo S.I for one year for the offence under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code; S.I for six months for the offence under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and S.I for one month for the offence under section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the written report of the prosecutrix alleging therein that on 30.09.2001 at 9.30 am, the petitioner who was her brother-in-law, entered into the kitchen where she was cooking and caught hold of her breast and also tried to disrobe her with an intention to rape her.

In order to prove its case, prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. Both the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court on the basis of the evidences available on the record, came to concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner.

On perusal of the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it appears that the prosecutrix has been examined as P.W.-2. She has stated that on 30.09.2001 at about 9.30 am, she was present in the kitchen when the petitioner came there and squeezed her breast. She raised alarm, on which, the petitioner fell her on the ground and also tore her nightwear. In the meantime, the parents-in-law of the prosecutrix came there and rescued her. She has further stated that the petitioner is her brother-in-law. At the instance of this petitioner, her husband had deserted her and she was residing with her in-laws. She has stated that her husband has filed an application for divorce against her. She has been cross-examined at length There is nothing in her cross-examination to doubt her veracity.

Purnendu Pal (P.W-1) is the father-in-law of the prosecutrix, while Deepali Paul (P.W-3) is the mother-in-law of the prosecutrix. Both these witnesses are father and mother of the present petitioner. They have fully supported the case of the prosecution. They have stated that on 30.09.2001, their daughter-in-law was cooking, when their son who is the present petitioner, entered into the kitchen and molested her. On her alarm, they went to kitchen and rescued her. These witnesses have been cross-examined at length. Purnendu Paul (P.W-1) in his cross-examination has stated that just after the occurrence, his daughter-in-law started raising alarm. She was alleging that the petitioner had caught hold of her breast from behind. On her hulla, he went to the kitchen. His wife was present there from before. He has further stated that when he confronted his son, he started abusing him.

Deepali Paul (P.W-3) in her cross-examination, has stated that on hearing hulla of her daughter-in-law, she went to the kitchen and found her lying on the ground, her maxi was torn.

Johar Lal Rai (P.W-4) is hearsay witness. He is the brother of the victim. Vidya Prasad Singh (P.W-5) is the I.O of this case. He has proved the formal F.I.R which is Ext.-2. He has further proved the place of occurrence which is kitchen in the two storied house of the Informant.

Dilip Kumar Rai (P.W-6) is another hearsay witness. He is the brother of the victim.

From the aforesaid oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it appears that the victim who has been examined as P.W-2 has fully supported her case and has stated that the petitioner had caught hold of her breast and also torn her maxi. Deepali Paul (P.W-3) and Purnendu Paul (P.W-1) who are mother and father of the petitioner, have fully supported the case of the prosecutrix. It is difficult to disbelief their version as no father or mother will falsely depose against their own son and in favour of their daughter-in-law in the case of this nature. Furthermore, there is nothing in their cross-examination to doubt their veracity.

Considering the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the petitioner for the offences under sections 323/341/354 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt. Learned Trial Court has rightly held the petitioner guilty for the aforesaid offences. The sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and does not require any interference.

Accordingly, this revision application is dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.