Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.948 of 2012 ====================================================== Indira Singh, Wife of Gaya Singh, Resident of Village – Ahiwas, Post Office – Upri, Police Station – Ramgarh, District – Kaimur (Bhabua). .... .... Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Ishwar Dayal Kahar, Son of Ram Bachan Kahar, Resident of Village – Ahiwas, Post Office – Upri, Police Station – Ramgarh, District – Kaimur (Bhabua) .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Ambuj Narayan Chaubey, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA) 3 01-10-2012 Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the State. The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 27.04.2012 passed in Sessions Trial No. 276/53 of 2007/2012 arising out of Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 39 of 2007 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 5, Kaimur at Bhabua, whereby the respondent no. 2 was found guilty under [STATUTE] and released under Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act. The FIR was lodged by a lady that she has gone to evacuate herself at a distance of 100 yards from her house. In the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.948 of 2012 (3) dt.01-10-2012 2 meanwhile, the accused tried to outrage her modesty but the informant escaped and succeeded in saving her modesty. The case was registered and investigated into and the accused was charged under [STATUTE] . In course of evidence, the witnesses were examined and the court found the evidence inadequate so far as proving the charge under [STATUTE] was concerned but the court found enough evidence to hold the appellant guilty under [STATUTE] and his bail bond was cancelled and he was taken into custody then after hearing, on the question of sentence, the order was passed. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that in view of allegation and evidence the court ought to have made the accused guilty under [STATUTE] and it was not correct to release the accused so lightly. The evidence gathered could not make out a case under [STATUTE] rather the evidence was only for proving the charge under [STATUTE] . Once the charge was proved to that extent then it was mandatory for the court to consider the mandate of Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act. As both the sentences were punishable up to two years. The court considered it and found no more sentences are Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.948 of 2012 (3) dt.01-10-2012 3 required as no previous conviction was proved against the accused. The judgment under appeal does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or impropriety. The substantial justice has been done. In view of the matter the order requires no interference. In the result, the appeal is without merit and it is accordingly dismissed. KKSINHA/- (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.