AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Criminal Appeal is preferred on behalf of the appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 08.07.2016 and order of sentence dated 11.07.2016 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court (Rape Cases), Deoghar, in Sessions Trial No.252 of 2013, whereby and wherein the appellant had been convicted for an offence under Section 376 (D) IPC. He was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 20 years, with a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, under Section 376(D) IPC.
We have heard learned counsel representing the appellant and learned Spl. P.P. representing the State at length and have gone through the materials on record.
Learned counsel representing the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant is liable to be set aside, as the Trial Court has failed to appreciate that P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-4, being relatives of the victim, were highly interested and hearsay witnesses. Further, P.W.-3, was the Medical Officer and one of the members of the Medical Board, who had examined the victim, however, she had not given any definite opinion of rape. Learned counsel thus submitted that the Trial Court wrongly convicted the appellant without appreciating that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Learned Spl. P.P. representing the State, opposed the aforesaid prayer and submitted that the Trial Court correctly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witness and came to a conclusion that the appellant is guilty of committing an offense under section 376 (D) IPC; thus, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence does not call for any interference. She produced a scanned copy of a letter bearing Memo No. 3535 dated 27.09.2026, received from the Superintendent, Central Jail, Dumka, informing her of the period of custody. The said document is kept on record.
The case of the prosecution on the basis of fardbeyan dated 22.02.2013, given by the informant – Janki Devi, is that her married daughter, who is dumb, was living with her for three months. On the same day, i.e., 22.02.2013, at around 08:00 A.M., the victim girl left home for Deoghar market to work as a labour, but she did not return till 06:00 P.M., upon which the informant set out to find her mute daughter, and around 07:30 P.M., she found her daughter crying near the Bhairo Yadav rickshaw depot, situated adjacent to the residence of D.C. Deoghar. When she asked her daughter what had happened, two individuals who were already standing near her daughter started to run away. With the help of the people present there, a person was caught, and when the informant asked her mute daughter, she, through gestures, indicated that this man had ravished/committed wrong with her at Bhairo Yadav’s Rickshaw Depot. When asked for the name and address of that apprehended individual, he identified himself as “Mantu Choudhary, son of Tulsi Choudhary, resident of Pipradih, Police Station Jhajha, District Jamui, Bihar” (appellant herein), and he also stated that he works as a rickshaw puller at Bhairo Yadav’s rickshaw depot. The informant claimed that this appellant ravished her mute daughter near Bhairo Yadav’s rickshaw depot.
On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan, F.I.R. being Nagar Mahila P.S. Case No.68 of 2013, was registered against the appellant and an unknown person, under Section 376 D(2)K IPC. After investigation, the prosecution submitted a charge-sheet under Section 376D (2)K IPC (Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 2013); and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where the Court framed charges under Section 376(D) IPC, and the trial proceeded.
To prove the prosecution case, the prosecution has examined the following 09 witnesses, who are as follows: -
P.W.-1 Janki Devi (informant)
P.W.-2 Jhagru Mahtha
P.W.-3 Dr. Nivedita Kumari
P.W.-4 Vinod Kumar
P.W.-5 Sarita Devi
P.W.-6 Jhupar Mahtha
P.W.-7 Sachit Mahtha
P.W.-8 Victim (Masked by the Court)
P.W.-9 Prafullit Kujur, I.O.
Several documentary evidences and material exhibits were also produced, which are as follows:-
Ext.-1 Medical Board Report
Ext.2 Sign of Jhupar Mahtha on attest Memo
Ext.2/1 Arrest Memo
Ext.-3 Fardbeyan
Ext.-3/1 Agrasaran
Ext.-3/2 Endorsement
Ext.-4 Signature of O/C K.K. Sahu on formal F.I.R.
Ext.-5 Signature of Prafullit Kujur on the seizure list.
Ext.-6 Signature of Prafullit Kujur on the seizure list.
Ext.-7 Forwarding letter for medical examination of the victim.
Ext.-8 Signature of Mantu Choudhary in confessional statement.
Ext.-9 Test Identification Parade Chart
The appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., had not pleaded guilty.
The Trial Court, after hearing both the parties, vide its judgment of conviction and order of sentence, convicted the appellant and sentenced him, as delineated in the opening paragraph of this judgment, which have been challenged in this Criminal Appeal.
After hearing the parties and going through the evidence, F.I.R. and other materials available on record, we find that P.W.-1 (mother of the victim) and P.W.-8, who is the victim herself, have come in the witness-box and supported the prosecution case. Also, the Medical Officer who had deposed as P.W.-3, corroborated the same. P.W.-2 and P.W.-4 are the father and brother of the victim girl, who supported the prosecution story. P.W.-5 is the seizure list witness, who deposed that the clothes of the appellant and the victim girl, having stains on them, were seized. P.W.-6 proved the arrest memo, to which he appended his signature.
P.W.-1 is the informant (mother of the victim girl). She deposed that her victim daughter cannot speak. She is married, has one male child, and used to reside with her for three months. On the date of the incident, when her daughter did not return till 06:00 P.M. from her labor work, she, with her son, went out in search of her daughter, and when they reached a Rickshaw Depot situated near D.C. residence, she saw her daughter crying over there, and two persons were also standing beside her. When the informant asked her victim daughter by gestures, she, while pointing towards those two men, began making the sound “Oh oh oh”, upon which both of them started fleeing; however, one of them was caught hold of by the people present there. That person revealed his name as Mantu Choudhary, who used to live in the said Rickshaw Depot and drives a Rickshaw, and he also gave the name of the other person as Manoj Rajak, upon which again her victim daughter, through her gestures, expressed that both of them had committed rape with her. Thereafter, the informant, along with her son, took the appellant to the Mahila Police Station and gave her fardbeyan. She deposed that the clothes of her victim daughter were seized.
P.W.-3 is the Medical Officer, who, with other members of the Medical Board, had examined the victim girl. They indicated the victim girl to be dumb in their pathological report. They opined that they had found the presence of physical signs of violence on the person of the victim. In the cross-examination also, it was deposed that they had found injuries on the person of the victim at the time of her medical examination.
P.W.-8 is the victim girl, who is deaf and dumb; thus, her testimony was recorded through her gestures in the presence of an Interpreter – Anurekha Kumari. Be it noted that this interpreter also assisted in recording the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and the State provided her services.
We did not find any opposition by the defence in the appointment of the interpreter and in relation to her job. The victim girl deposed that on the date of the incident, she was returning home from her work and when she reached D.C. residence, two persons standing there stopped her and ravished her one by one, by completely disrobing her, and when she started crying, they fled away. At para-2, she deposed that she had appeared in Court once before as well to give her statement in this regard. In cross-examination, the victim deposed that she works as a maid in four houses. Her husband deserted her. She also deposed that, prior to the incident, the appellant did not visit her house.
It is well-accepted that normally a woman would not falsely implicate someone for the offence of rape, as the incident brings stigma to the woman. The victim girl (P.W.-8), who is undoubtedly dumb, had identified the appellant in the Test Identification Parade (T.I.P.) [Ext.-9]. She in Court with the help of translator Anulekha Kumari, deposed that the appellant had committed sexual assault upon her.
The contention of learned counsel representing the appellant that there is no definite opinion of rape as no spermatozoa was found, cannot be accepted. P.W.-3 (Doctor) found the presence of physical signs of violence on the person of the victim which corroborate the testimony of the victim. It is also well-settled that absence of spermatozoa is not a conclusive factor and penetration is not sine qua non to complete the offence under section 376 IPC. Further, it is also a well-settled principle of law that conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the victim/prosecutrix, if it inspires confidence.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Vs. Pankaj Chaudhary reported in 2018 SCC OnLine SC 2256, at para-26, held as hereunder:-
“26.It is now well-settled principle of law that conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence. [Vishnu alias Undrya v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 1 SCC 283]. It is well-settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that there is no rule of law or practice that the evidence of the prosecutrix cannot be relied upon without corroboration and as such it has been laid down that corroboration is not a sine qua non for conviction in a rape case. If the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity and the 'probabilities factor' does not render it unworthy of credence, as a general rule, there is no reason to insist on corroboration except from medical evidence, where, having regard to the circumstances of the case, medical evidence can be expected to be forthcoming. [State v. N.K. The accused (2000) 5 SCC 30].”
Taking into consideration the depositions given by P.W.-1 (Mother), P.W.-3 and P.W.-8 (victim) and the judgment cited hereinabove, we find that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and the statements of the victim girl inspire confidence. Thus, we find no merit in this Criminal Appeal.
The impugned judgment of conviction dated 08.07.2016 and order of sentence dated 11.07.2016 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court (Rape Cases), Deoghar, in Sessions Trial No.252 of 2013, are hereby affirmed.
Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of.
Trial Court Records be transmitted back to the Court concerned.