Yezdi Khan @ Yezdi vs The State of Bihar

Mandhata Singh, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.7.2009 passed by Shri Brajendra Kumar Srivastava, Addl. Sessions Judge-IX, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 67 of 2008 for the offence under Sections 376 and 450 of the I.P.C.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State.

First Information Report is lodged basing fard-bayan of one Chandni Kumari, victim of the case which in brief is that on 06.7.2007, she was alone in her house. Her mother, father and brother had gone to different places in connection of their job. At about 6.00P.M. Yezdi Khan accused-appellant of the case knocked her door, she opened the same, thereupon appellant forcefully entered the room, bolted the same from inside, undressed her and committed rape upon her. After committing the rape, he left the room. She was taken by her land-lady. After coming of her mother, she narrated the incident to her. Chhotu called him (appellant), he confessed his guilt that was corroborated by the victim also that rape was committed by the appellant. Informant could know name of the accused-appellant. Further allegation is that he abused her mother, on objection assaulted also. Matter could not be reported to police as it was late night.

After concluding the trial, case is ended in conviction and sentence. Validity of which has been questioned through filing this appeal.

After argument at length, learned counsel for the appellant preferred to stress the sentence only that the same may be minimized to the period undergone by the appellant, because of the reason that victim was habituated to sex, there was no injury on any part of victim''s person and there was no sign at all of any nature to commit forceful sexual intercourse. No doubt, no injury is found on the person of the victim lady. No spermatozoa is also found in vaginal swab when was examined by Forensic Laboratory, but her (victim''s) age has been assessed 14 years by the doctor. So, the circumstance suggested is not justifying for less than the prescribed minimum period of seven years.

On the observations made above, appeal is allowed in part on the point of sentence only which (sentence) is minimized to the period of seven years. Conviction of the appellant is affirmed.

A copy of the judgment along with L.C.R. be sent back to the Trial Court forthwith.