Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.293 of 1999 ***** Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.9.1999 passed in Buniadganj P.S.Case No. 32/97Tr. No. 32/97 by Sri Daroga Prasad, Special Judge, Gaya. =========================================================== Ballam Bharti .... .... Appellant Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent with Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 304 of 1999 =========================================================== 1. Udai Pandit @ Udai Bharti 2. Musafir Yadav .... .... Appellants Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent with Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 317 of 1999 =========================================================== Kuldeep Yadav @ Kuldip Yadav ... .... Appellant Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent with Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 321 of 1999 =========================================================== Vijay Yadav .... .... Appellant Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent =========================================================== Appearance: (In CR. APP (SJ) No. 293 of 1999) With (CR. APP (SJ) No. 304 of 1999) With (CR. APP (SJ) No. 317 of 1999) With (CR. APP (SJ) No. 321 of 1999) For the Appellants: Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate, Mr. Prabhu Narayan Sharma, Ms. Anita Kumari Singh and Mr. Krishna Chandra For the Respondent-State: Mr. S.N.Prasad, A.P.P. Mr. Ajay Mishra, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANDHATA SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 14-03-2012 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.293 of 1999 dt.14-03-2012 2 / 7 2 Mandhata Singh,J. Statement/fardbeyan of Jamwanti Devi one of the victims has been made basis for lodging the F.I.R. which in short is that in the night of 30.8.1997 at about 10.30 PM she was sleeping in her room along with her husband Lallan Ravidas which was opened and it was raining also. Her brother-in-law (Dewar) was sleeping with his wife in another room. Other family members were sleeping in different rooms. Her father-in-law, mother- in-law and Nanad had gone to sleep in the house of Kesar Ravidas (P.W.2). It is alleged that 3-4 persons entered her room, tied her husband’s hands, took him to another room and bolted there. It is further alleged that two persons again entered her room and committed rape upon her after giving threatening to her life. After leaving her room by miscreants, she (informant) came out from her room and found her husband and Dewar Shankar Ravidas confined in the room of Sheobarat Ravidas. She opened his room which was bolted from outside, untied hands of her husband and Dewar. In the meantime, Peyari Devi also came and reported that five of the accused persons had committed rape upon her after giving threatening to her life and taken away her ornaments and it is said that her husband Lallan Ravidas had identified Vijay Yadav, Udai Pandit, Kuldip Yadav and son of Lucha Yadav, all of village Kukiasin. Her Dewar and grand father-in-law have also identified the above miscreants. It is further alleged that she heard that above miscreants had committed some crime in the house of Kasturi Manjhi. 2. The trial ended in conviction and sentence to accused appellants for the offence under sections 376(2)(g) wrongly mentioned in the judgment “(G)”, 324/34 and 450/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3(1)(x) (xii) of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act wrongly mentioned Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.293 of 1999 dt.14-03-2012 3 / 7 3 in the judgment of the trial court as 3(x)(xi) & (xii) of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by passing the impugned judgment and order validity of which has been questioned through filing these appeals. 3. In all 14 witnesses are examined in the case and they are P.W.1 Dr Meena Kumari, P.W.2 Kesar Ravidas, P.W.3 Manki Devi, P.W.4 Ramakant Ram, P.W.5 Razia Devi, mother-in-law of victims, P.W.6 Dulari Devi, P.W.7 Kasturi Manjhi uncle of victims’ husband, P.W.8 Mungeswar Manjhi, P.W.9 Lallan Ravidas husband of the informant, P.W.10 Shankar Ravidas husband of one of the victims, P.W.11 Jamwanti Devi informant of the case, P.W.12 Peyari Devi one of the victims, P.W.13 Sheobarat Ravidas grand father-in-law of victims and P.W.14 Shahjehan Khan I.O. of the case. 4. P.W.1 is doctor who examined both the victim ladies and found no sign of rape which could appear on the person of victims. It is made clear that probability of appearing of any sign in case of resistance is injury on person of victims including their private part and remaining of semen. In this case, F.I.R. as well as statement of both the victims in their examination in chief is clear that rape was committed upon them by group of persons giving threatening to their lives and there was no resistance at all. 5. P.W.14 is I.O. of the case can be discussed whenever required in the case. Informant and her family members are members of scheduled caste is not denied in the case and offences under any section of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made applicable only to their (victims) being member of scheduled caste community. Rest of offences are of confinement to family members of the informant, commitment of theft of ornaments and household articles and commitment of rape. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.293 of 1999 dt.14-03-2012 4 / 7 4 6. Witnesses can easily be divided in several groups including hostile, hearsay for part of the incident and eye witness for the rest, eye witness, victims, identifying the all or none or some of them. 7. P.W.2 is stating about his coming from Sasural next day of the incident and hearing about taking place of the incident of theft and commitment of rape, same is repeated by P.W.3 also. P.Ws 4 and 8 are stating about hearing of commitment of rape upon Peyari Devi and Jamwanti Devi. P.Ws 3 and 4 have been declared hostile, cross-examined by the prosecution but all these witnesses i.e. P.Ws 2 to 4 are of no avail for the prosecution in either way

Applicable IPC Section: 395

Statute Text:
Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. Dacoity. Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.