Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.257 of 2000 ============================================================= (Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 24.7.2000 passed by Sri Vikas Kumar Sharma, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur, in Sessions Trial No.164/50 of 1994). ============================================================= Surendra Rai, son of Lutan Rai, resident of village-Chak Haidar, Police Station- Tajpur, District-Samastipur. .... .... Appellant. Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent. ============================================================= with Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 262 of 2000 ============================================================= (Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 24.7.2000 passed by Sri Vikas Kumar Sharma, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur, in Sessions Trial No.164/50 of 1994). ============================================================= Bharat Poddar, son of Sukhdeo Poddar, residents of village-Chakhaidar, P.S. Tajpur, District-Samastipur. .... .... Appellant. Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent. ============================================================= Appearance : (In CR. APP (SJ) No. 257 of 2000): For the Appellant: M/s. Ashutosh Kumar, Chandramohan Jha and Dhananjay Kumar Singh, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar, A.P.P. (In CR. APP (SJ) No. 262 of 2000): For the Appellant: M/s. Jitendra Narain Sinha, Krishna Nandan Kumar, Rohit Kumar and Shikha Roy, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA CAV JUDGMENT Date: 19-12-2012: -------------- Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.257 of 2000 filed on behalf of the appellant, Surendra Rai, and Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.262 of 2000 filed Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.257 of 2000 dt.19-12-2012 2 / 18 2 on behalf of the appellant, Bharat Poddar, have been directed against the judgment of conviction and order or sentence dated 24.7.2000 passed by the court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur, in Sessions Trial No.164/50 of 1994, whereby the court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur, while acquitting the accused, Surendra Rai (appellant in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.257 of 2000) and the accused, Bharat Poddar (appellant in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.262 of 2000) for the charge under [STATUTE] giving them the benefit of doubt, has convicted them for the offence under [STATUTE] and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence under [STATUTE] , for two years for the offence under [STATUTE] and for three months for the offence under [STATUTE] . However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Since both the appeals have been directed against the same judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.7.2000 passed by the court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur, in Sessions Trial No.164/50 of 1994, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In brief, the prosecution case is that the informant, Usha Devi (P.W.3) gave her fardbeyan at the door of Surendra Rai in village- Chak Haidar, Police Station-Tajpur, District-Samastipur, to the Sub Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.257 of 2000 dt.19-12-2012 3 / 18 3 Inspector of Police, Indradeo Prasad (P.W.11), Officer Incharge of Police Station-Tajpur on 27.7.1993 at about 5.30 A.M. to the effect that in the preceding night after taking the meal she had slept in her house. At about 12 O’clock in the night, Surendra Rai, son of Lutan Rai, Pallu Rai, son of Paltan Rai and Bharat Poddar, son of Sukhdeo Poddar, all of village-Chak Haidarpur, P.S. Tajpur, District-Samastipur, came to her house and asked her to open the door using abusive language. Due to fear she opened the door of her house, then they forcibly entered into her house and catching her hand forcibly taken her to the door of the house of Surendra Rai by dragging and causing assault. Thereafter, Surendra Rai locked her in a room and committed rape on her twice. At that time, Pallu Rai and Bharat Poddar fled away from there. She has further alleged that in the preceding night her husband was not present at her house. At that time, her Nanad (sister-in-law), Veena Devi and cousin mother-in-law were present at her house, who also raised hullah but due to fear of the accused, none rushed to save her there. Her neighbours have also seen the occurrence, who would narrate the same if they are asked. 3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Usha Devi (P.W.3), Tajpur P.S. Case No.240 of 1993 was instituted against the accused, Surendra Rai, Pallu Rai and Bharar Poddar under [STATUTE] and 3(X) of the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.257 of 2000 dt.19-12-2012 4 / 18 4 Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on 27.7.1993 and after submission of the chargesheet by the police on investigation under [STATUTE] , the cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions for trial, where charges for the offences under [STATUTE] were explained to the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and, accordingly, the trial proceeded. In course of trial, one accused, Pallu Rai, died, hence, the trial concluded in respect to the accused, Surendra Rai and Bharat Poddar only. 4. The court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur, on consideration of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the materials available on the record, while acquitted the accused-appellants for the offence under [STATUTE] givi

Applicable IPC Section: 366

Statute Text:
Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. Kidnapping or abducting a woman to compel her marriage or to cause her defilement etc. Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and whoever, by means of criminal intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of authority or any other method of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place with intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall also be punishable as aforesaid.