Case Facts:
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2012 (3) dt.28-09-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.947 of 2012 ====================================================== Bijali Khatoon daughter of Md.Suleman, resident of Raghuni Chak,P.S.Mansahi, District Katihar .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Md.Samir son of Md.Tamsin, resident of village Raghunichak, P.S.Mansahi, District Katihar .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.N.Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA) --------------- 3 28-09-2012 This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 09.08.2012 passed by Sri Bajrangi Sharan, Additional Sessions Judge Ist, Katihar in Sessions Trial No. 42 of 2010 whereby accused-respondent no.2 has been acquitted of the charge under [STATUTE] . Initially Complaint Petition No. 984 of 2007 was filed and it was sent to police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for lodging F.I.R. and thereafter Mansahi P.S.Case No. 48 of 2007 was registered under [STATUTE] . After observing all paraphernalia, the case was committed to the court of sessions where charge under [STATUTE] was framed and explained Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2012 (3) dt.28-09-2012 to the accused who pleaded innocence. Thereafter, the trial proceeded which ended in acquittal, as stated above. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it has come in evidence that on allurement of marriage, sexual relationship continued. Thereafter panchaiyati was also organized but the accused refused to marry with the complainant. We perused the judgment. The trial court has taken into account the case and counter case, medical report, the contradictions which have come in evidence and after considering all these found the case to be doubtful and has granted the benefit of doubt to the accused. The judgment of acquittal can only be interfered with if it is found that the judgment is without reasoning or perverse reasonings have been given but the judgment has been passed after considering every circumstances available on the record. Thus, the judgment requires no interference by this Court. In the result, the appeal is without merit and is accordingly dismissed. Tahir/- (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J) (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J)

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.