Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) NO. 374 OF 2000 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) NO. 382 OF 2000 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) NO. 413 OF 2000 =========================================================== AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 26TH SEPTEMBER, 2000 AND THE ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 28TH SEPTEMBER, 2000 PASSED BY SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA, 5TH ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, AURANGABAD IN SESSIONS TRIAL NO. 18 OF 1998/5 OF 2000 ARISING OUT OF RAFIGANJ POLICE STATION CASE NO. 62 OF 1997 =========================================================== KISHORI MOHAN, SON OF MANGAL YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHARKAWAN, POLICE STATION RAFIGANJ, DISTRICT AURANGABAD .... .... APPELLANT (IN CR. APP. 374/2000) WITH MRITUNJAY KUMAR, SON OF SHRI SIDHESHWAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAFIGANJ, NEAR RAILWAY CROSSING, POLICE STATION RAFIGANJ, DISTRICT AURANGABAD … …. APPELLANT (IN CR. APP. 382/2000) WITH SANJAY KUMAR SHYAM, SON OF SHRI SIDHESHWAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAFIGANJ, NEAR RAILWAY CROSSING, POLICE STATION RAFIGANJ, DISTRICT AURANGABAD … …. APPELLANT (IN CR. APP. 413/2000) VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... RESPONDENT (IN ALL APPEALS) =========================================================== APPEARANCE : (IN CR. APP (SJ) NO. 374 OF 2000) FOR THE APPELLANT : MR. KRISHNA PD. SINGH, SR. ADV. MR. RAJESH SINGH, ADVOCATE MR. MITHILESH KR. SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR THE S T A T E : MR. JHARKHANDI UPADHYAY, A.P.P. (IN CR. APP (SJ) NO. 382 OF 2000) FOR THE APPELLANT : MR. ABHIMANYU SHARMA, ADVOCATE MR. ASHOK KR. SINGH-3, ADVOCATE FOR THE S T A T E : MR. SUJIT KUMAR SINGH, A.P.P. (IN CR. APP (SJ) NO. 413 OF 2000) FOR THE APPELLANT : MR. ABHIMANYU SHARMA, ADVOCATE MR. ASHOK KR. SINGH-3, ADVOCATE FOR THE S T A T E : MR. SUJIT KUMAR SINGH, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 09-10-2012 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.374 of 2000 dt.09-10-2012 2 / 12 2 Sheema Ali Khan, J. These three appeals arise out of the common judgment passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 98 and 5/2000 by which he has convicted all the appellants under [STATUTE] and directed them to pay Rs. 5,000/- each as fine. Appellant Sanjay Kumar Shyam has further been convicted under [STATUTE] and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. The said fine is to be paid to the victim girl. Kishori Mohan is the Principal of Shahid Bhagat Singh Mahila College, Rafiganj (hereinafter referred to as the ‘the College’). He has remained in custody for 3 months and 29 days. Mritunjay has remained in custody for four 4 months and 28 days whereas, appellant Sanjay Kumar Shyam has remained in custody for about 3 years and 10 months. 2. The case was instituted on 5.7.1997 for an occurrence which took place on 2.7.1997 by Anwar Hussain, father of the victim girl, Rashida Sharin @ Rubi alleging therein that the victim has left her house to go to the College. When she did not return in the evening the family members began to look for her. They later came to know that Sanjay, who was a Lecturer in the said College, had kidnapped Rubi. They went to the house of Sanjay but could not recover the victim girl. Apparently, Sanjay was also Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.374 of 2000 dt.09-10-2012 3 / 12 3 missing from his house. It is alleged that Sanjay has kidnapped the victim girl who is supposedly a minor with the intention to marry her. 3. The defence on behalf of the appellants is complete denial of the occurrence on behalf of Kishori Mohan, the Principal and Mritunjay Kumar, the brother of Sanjay. It has been said that they had no inkling regarding the said occurrence and they had no role to play in the said kidnapping. On behalf of Sanjay Kumar Shyam it is said that the girl is a major. They were well known to each other and both of them left their house because they wanted to get married and their parents had not agreed for the marriage as both of them belonged to different religion. He further claims that after they left their house, they went to Dhanbad, where they got married in a Mandir after which they went to Puri to spend their honeymoon and then returned to Dhanbad from where they were recovered. 4. In support of his case, Sanjay Kumar Shyam has filed an affidavit executed by the victim girl in support of their marriage. It is also stated that the victim Rashida has been pressurized by her parents and mentally tortured to give a statement against the actual facts of the case. 5. This Court, therefore, has to examine two aspects of this case. Firstly, it is to be determined whether the girl was minor or major on the date of occurrence? The Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.374 of 2000 dt.09-10-2012 4 / 12 4 second aspect of this case is that the Court has to decipher whether the victim girl had left her house willingly? 6. The specific case of the prosecution is that the girl is 17 years old and is student of B.A. Part-I in Shahid Bhagat Singh Mahila College, Rafiganj. It has been stated by the victim girl that she can produce her matriculation certificate to indicate her date of birth. However, she has not produced the certificate, infact she has specifically stated in her evidence that she cannot recall her date of birth as mentioned in the said certificate. The parents of the girl have not produced the documents, such as Admit Card or Admission Register of the College, which would also have indicated the age of the girl. Therefore, the prosecution case that the girl is a minor is based on the oral statement of the victim girl and her mother which cannot be considered by this Court, in view of the admitted position that the victim was a student of B.A. Part-I and was expected to lead documentary evidence to clinch the issue of her age. Thus, this Court has to rely on the me

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.