AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
At the outset, Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal, learned State counsel, by way of filing counter affidavit, submits that in compliance to the order dated 27.07.2026 passed by this Court, the Senor Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur submitted a report to this Court, kept at Annexure ‘ A’ to the counter affidavit, wherein it has been stated that the appellant has completed his sentence on 14.10.2020 and due to non-deposit of fine of Rs. 10,000/-, he completed 15 days more in custody, as per sentence awarded by the learned trial Court, and thereafter, he was released from jail on 29.10.2020.
Under the changed circumstances, this appeal now survives only against the judgment of conviction dated 26.05.2018 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No. 595 of 2017, arising out of Sahebganj P.S. Case No. 130 of 2017, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution, in brief, is that informant Sabita Devi alleged that at about 10 o'clock in the night of 13.05.2017, while she was sleeping, her co-villager Sanjay Ram (appellant herein) entered her house, shut her mouth and tried to establish physical relationship with her and when she raised alarm, her father-in-law (Hiraman Ram), husband Suresh Ram and mother-in-law Pashpati Devi came there and on their alarm, other villagers also reached there and this appellant was apprehended and thereafter, he was handed over to police.
On the basis of fardbeyan of informant, Sahebganj P.S. Case No. 130 of 2017 was registered against appellant under Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”).
The police after due investigation submitted charge-sheet under Section 376/511 of the IPC and thereafter, learned Magistrate took cognizance and committed the case to the court of sessions and thereafter, charge was also framed under Section 376/511 and explained to the accused-appellant, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
In this case, the prosecution has examined altogether five witnesses in order to prove its case, who are:
“P.W.-1- Rakesh Ram (turned hostile)
P.W.-2- Devraj Ram, who is co-villager, has supported the prosecution case.
P.W.-3- Sabita Devi, who is the informant/victim of this case, has supported the prosecution version in her examination-in-chief and stated that this appellant tried to commit rape upon her.
P.W.-4- Suresh Ram (husband of informant) supported the prosecution case.
P.W.-5- Mahendra Singh (I.O. of the case) has deposed that after taking charge of investigation of the case, he went to the place of occurrence, recorded statements of informant and other witnesses and after completing investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the appellant.”
The prosecution has adduced documentary evidences, which are marked as:-
| Exhibit 1 | Signature of Informant on written application |
| Exhibit 2 | Endorsement at the margin of written report |
| Exhibit 3 | Formal F.I.R. |
After hearing the parties and perusing the materials available on record, the learned Trial Court has convicted and sentenced this appellant, as indicated above.
On careful perusal of the records, this Court finds that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Though, P.W.-1 turned hostile, but rest three prosecution witnesses, including informant have clearly supported the prosecution case and P.W.-5, who is investigating officer of the case, after investigating, submitted chargesheet under Section 376/511 of the IPC. Meaning thereby that he also found the case true. Therefore, the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code No perversity or illegality is found in appreciation of evidence by the learned Trial Court warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 26.05.2018 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No. 595 of 2017, arising out of Sahebganj P.S. Case No. 130 of 2017, is upheld.
Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of.