Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) NO.222 OF 2000 ========================================================== AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND THE ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 03RD JUNE, 2000 PASSED IN SESSIONS TRIAL NO. 111 OF 1992/TRIAL NO. 404 OF 1993 BY SHRI NAGESHWAR PRASAD, 1ST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, ARARIA =========================================================== JAGDEO PRASAD YADAV @ JAGDEO YADAV, SON OF LATE MUNSILAL YADAV RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-KOCHGAMA POLICE STATION-ARARIA DISTRICT-ARARIA .... .... APPELLANT/S VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... RESPONDENT/S =========================================================== APPEARANCE : FOR THE APPELLANT/S : MR. UDAY BHANU ROY, ADV. MR.SANTOSH CHANDRA BHASKAR, ADV FOR THE STATE : MRS. ABHA SINGH, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 13-08-2012 Sheema Ali Khan, J. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 03rd June, 2000 passed in Sessions Trial No. 111 of 1992/Trial No. 404 of 1993 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Araria, whereby the Trial Court has found and held the appellant guilty for the offences punishable under [STATUTE] and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Satia Devi, accompanied by her husband Ghoran Tatma, Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Shyamsunder Sah and Laxmi Yadav went to Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.222 of 2000 dt.13-08-2012 2 / 5 2 the Police Station and gave her beyan, stating that on the previous day she went to Kusiargaon Hat to buy house-hold articles. While returning at about 04.30 P.M., when she was at about a mile from her house and was crossing the Forest, the appellant snatched her food items and dragged her in the forest and thereafter raped. She gave information to the police on the next day i.e. on 13.10.1989. 3. During investigation, altogether nine witnesses have been examined, out of which P.W.1 Pradeep Kumar Yadav, P.W.3 Shyam Sundar Sah, P.W.5 Laxmi Narayan Yadav, PW 6 Fani Nath Yadav, PW 7 Guneshwar Yadav and PW 8 Laxmi Yadav have been declared hostile. The witnesses, who were mentioned in the First Information Report namely, Pradeep Kumar Yadav (PW 1), Shyam Sunder Sah (PW 3) and Laxmi Yadav (PW 8), have also declined to have any knowledge of the occurrence. Although they had accompanied the informant and her husband to the Police Station at the time she gave her fardbeyan. 4. P.W.2 Satia Devi, who is the victim and informant of this case, supports the prosecution version. The highlights of her evidence are that she has stated that she knows the appellant, as the appellant resides at a distance of one kilometer from her house. In fact, she states that she came to know that it was Jagdeo Prasad Yadav who raped her as it was her husband who disclosed the name. She also Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.222 of 2000 dt.13-08-2012 3 / 5 3 states that she had a small baby aged about two years old at the time of the occurrence and further claims that she took her child along with her when she went to the hat. At paragraph 14, she claims that she was raped for one hour. At paragraph 19, she has stated that she had filed a false case at the instigation of Ram Sewak Yadav, who had given her money to file aforesaid case. 5. From the evidence of P.W.2 Satia Devi discussed above, it would appear that this witness has accepted the fact that she had lodged a false case of rape. The manner in which she describes the occurrence and even the manner in which she discloses the name of the man who has raped her indicates that falsity of her claim. I may point out that she had stated that she knows that the appellant has five siblings. Her identification of the miscreant on the statement of her husband, coupled with her admission that she was paid money to lodge the case leads this Court to doubt that an occurrence took place in which the informant was raped. 6. On the other hand, PW 4 Ghoran Tatma, her husband, has tried to support the case instituted by his wife stating that he had told by his wife that Jagdeo Prasad Yadav had raped her. According to him his wife had not shown him the place of occurrence, but he goes further to state that he was the person who had taken the Investigating Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.222 of 2000 dt.13-08-2012 4 / 5 4 Officer to the place of occurrence. 7. The Investigating Officer, Purushotam Tiwary, P.W.9, on the other hand, has stated that at the place of occurrence, there is a Forest of ‘Khar’. According to the Investigating Officer, the informant as well as her husband had accompanied him to show the place of occurrence. Later, he resiles and state that PW 2 had actually gone to the hospital after showing the place where the occurrence took place. The Investigating Officer denied having any knowledge as to whether the appellant is employee to the Forest Department as a Guard. 8. On the basis of the statement it would appear that the informant has not supported her own case, as she accepts that a false case has been instituted. The manner of occurrence which has been described by the informant is unbelievable, for the reason that she has not been able to explain as to what happened to the young child, while she was being raped, the presence of the child is not even mentioned in the First Information Report. This Court concludes that no such occurrence had taken place, and the victim lady has instituted a false case for extraneous considerations. 9. The defence has also examined a witness, who works as a Forest Guard in the department. He supports the fact that he along with the appellant has gone to check Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.222 of 2000 dt.13-08-2012 5 / 5 5 the forest area and they have been employed by the Forest Department. He also states that a case was instituted by the department against Umesh Ya

Applicable IPC Section: 376

Statute Text:
Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Rape. Whoever, commits an offence punishable under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 376 and in the course of such commission inflicts an injury which causes the death of the woman or causes the woman to be in a persistent vegetative state, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, or with death.