Tapan Bhagat vs The State of Jharkhand

Pradeep Kumar, J.—This appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.6.2001 passed by Sri Sita Ram Mahato, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella in Sessions Trial No. 292 of 1996 against the appellant, Tapan Bhagat, by which the appellant has been found guilty of committing rape upon the informant, victim, Pallavi Bhagat and has been convicted u/s 376 of I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.

The prosecution case was started on the basis of the F.I.R. given by Pallavi Bhagat, W/o Pramotho Bhagat, P.W.5.

The prosecution story in brief as stated by the informant in her fardbeyan is that on 10.5.1996 at 8.30 P.M. she was alone in her house because her husband had gone to Kashidih to attend marriage and other members of the family had gone to the house of Sahadev Bhagat in the village to attend marriage. At the night when she went out for urination, her cousin ''devar'', Tapan Bhagat, appellant came there and closed her mouth by hand and carried her inside the rear room of the house and threw her on the ground and committed rape for ten minutes. She made hue and cry and hulla. On hearing her hulla, her ''Bhaisur'' Karendra Bhagat came there. Then the accused Tapan ran away pushing her ''Bhaisur'' to the side. When her husband came back from Kashidih then she went to the police station and gave her statement before the police. Her husband also signed on the fardbeyan and on the basis of the said fardbeyan police registered a case under Section376 I.P.C. and after investigation submitted chargesheet in the case. Learned Magistrate after taking cognizance of the case committed the same to the court of sessions where the trial was held.

In order of bring home the charges, the prosecution has altogether examined eight witnesses. P.W.1, Karendra Bhagat is the ''Bhaisur'' of the informant. P.W.2, Promotho Bhagat is the husband of the informant. P.W.3,Sumitra Bhagat is the neighbour, P.W.4,Madhusudan Bhagat is also the neighbour, P.W.5, Pallavi Bhagat is the informant and victim lady, P.W.6, Dr. C.S.J.Suri who conducted the medical examination of the victim lady, P.W.7, Kartik Kumar Mahanti is the formal witness who has proved the signature of the Investigating Officer of the case and P.W.8, Rabindra Nath Pradhan is also a formal witness who has proved the seizure list.

It appears that after conclusion of the trial and hearing of the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty and sentenced him as aforesaid.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that no independent witness came in support of the prosecution case and the appellant has falsely been implicated . He has further submitted that even the place of occurrence in the case has not been proved nor the Investigating Officer was examined and the appellant due to previous enmity has falsely been implicated. The finding of conviction and sentence is bad in fact and law and the appeal is accordingly fit to be allowed.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the state has submitted that occurrence was committed in the night at 8.30 P.M. when in the house of the informant and neighbouring house, everybody had gone to attend marriage in neighbourhood in the house of Sahdev Bhagat, so the witnesses examined are natural witnesses and there is no contradiction in their evidences. The non examination of the Investigating Officer has not caused any prejudice to the accused.

After hearing both the parties and going through the evidence adduced by the prosecution in the trial court it appears that P.W.1, Karendra Bhagat has stated in his deposition that on 10.5.1996 in the night when he was returning after attending marriage, then he heard the sound of help from the house of Promotho Bhagat and saw the door of the house opened. When he entered the house, then suddenly he saw his cousin brother, Tapan Bhagat coming from inside and after pushing him aside he ran away. Then on inquiry Promotho''s wife Pallavi Bhagat, informant, told him that the accused, Tapan Bhagat, finding her alone, committed rape upon her. Her husband had also gone away to attend some marriage in other village. Then he informed the other family members who asked him to wait for return of the informant''s husband. After Promotho Bhagat came, this F.I.R. was lodged. He proved his signature on the F.I.R. which is marked as Ext.1. He has stated that Baikunth Bhagat, Goverdhan Bhagat, Lakhan, Ghashiram were full brother. His father Sarat Bhagat was son of Baikunth Bhagat and Promotho Bhagat is his own brother. Indrajit is the son of Ghasiram and his son is Tapan and Sudhanshu. He has further stated in para 5 of his deposition that all other family members of his house and that of his cousin had gone to attend the marriage in the village. He has stated that the accused ran away in his presence pushing him away. He also stated that there was no injury on the person of Pallavi, but her sari was torn. P.W.2 is Promotho Bhagat, husband of the informant / victim lady. He has stated that on 10.5.1996 he had gone to Kashidih to attend some marriage when the occurrence took place. On 12.5.1996 when he came back from the marriage then his wife told him that in the night of 10.5.1996 at 8.30 P.M. his cousin brother, Tapan Bhagat committed rape upon her by force. Then he took her to the police station ,where she gave her statement. He also signed on the statement and proved the same as Ext.1/2. In his cross examination in para 3 of his deposition, he has stated that apart from his wife, he had asked about the occurrence from Karendra Bhagat, Sahdev Bhagat and Lakhindra. He has also stated that he has got no enmity with the accused, Tapan Bhagat. He denied that he had falsely implicated the accused Tapan Bhagat. P.W.3, Sumitra Bhagat is the neighbour. She has stated that in the morning after the day of the occurrence Pallavi told her that the accused, Tapan had committed rape upon her last night. She identified the accused in the court. P.W.4 is Madhusudan Bhagat who is also a neighbour. He has stated that in the night of the occurrence her ''Bhathijee'' was getting married. At night Karendra Bhagat came and asked him to go to the ''Mukhia''. He was declared hostile and in the cross examination where upon, he denied that he had told the police that accused, Tapan committed rape upon pallavi in the night of the occurrence.P.W.5,Pallavi Bhagat is the victim girl herself. She has supported her statement in the F.I.R. In the cross examination she has stated that Omio S/o Sarat and grandson of Goverdhan had earlier committed rape upon Triloka, daughter of Mamul, who is sister of Inderjeet, S/o Ghashi Ram. She denied that due to old rape and subsequent enmity, the accused has been falsely implicated. She stated that the accused put cloth in her mouth and she started bleeding from her nose. P.W.6 is the doctor C.S.J.Suri. He has examined the victim girl and found no sign of rape. He has proved his medical report as Ext.2. In his cross examination he has stated that the girl was habituated to sexual intercourse since she was married. P.W.7, K.K.Mohanty has proved the signature of the Investigating Officer on the fardbeyan of the Victim lady and P.W.8, R.N.Pradhan has proved the signature of the Investigating Officer in the seizure list.

Thus after examination of all the witnesses, I find that the prosecution case as lodged by P.W.5, Pallavi Bhagat has fully been corroborated by P.W.1, Karendra Bhagat who had seen the appellant, Tapan Bhagat running away from the place of occurrence immediately after the occurrence by pushing him away and he found the victim girl weeping with torn cloth and she narrated the occurrence to him. The occurrence has also been corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2, Promotho Bhagat, husband of the victim and P.W.3, Sumitra Bhagat. Further the doctor has not found any sign of rape because the victim lady is married lady and habituated of sexual intercourse. The statement of the doctor does not create any doubt in the prosecution case.

The defence has failed to bring any case of any enmity by alleging that earlier in a rape case Omio who is the son of Sarat was charged of rape upon Triloka, daughter of Mamul, because it is disclosed from the evidences itself that there is no connection between the two cases. The accused, Omio was common cousin of both the parties and the victim is also common cousin being ''phupheri'' sister. So there was no enmity to falsely implicate the appellant. The prosecution has proved the charges leveled against the appellant beyond reasonable doubts.

I find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.