Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.136 of 2001 Against judgment and order dated 7.4.2001 passed by Sri R C Jha, Additional Sessions Judge II, Khagaria, in Sessions Case No.316/99. =========================================================== Rajdeep Yadav son of Rajendra Yadav of Village Bhikharighat, PS Allouli, District Khagaria .... .... Appellant Versus State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Dhirendra Kishore Sahay, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, APP =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 17-12-2012 S.A.Khan, J. The appellant has been found guilty under [STATUTE] by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Khagaria, in Sessions Case No. 316/99. He has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. Out of the nine accused persons, two of them, namely, Bishundeo Gupta and Ramdeo Yadav were not sent up for trial, whereas Anant Kumar Das died during the pendency of this case. One of the co-accused, namely, Pappu Yadav has been acquitted by the judgment dated 13.6.2012. Initially the charges were framed under [STATUTE] alongwith [STATUTE] . The accused has been acquitted in all other Sections as the trial court has come to the conclusion that it cannot be conclusively Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.136 of 2001 dt.17-12-2012 2 proved that the victim Yogi Singh was kidnapped and had been killed by the appellant and others. 2. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 16.1.98 when the informant Mahendra Singh went alongwith Yogi Singh (the victim) and Ranjeet Singh his nephew, to inspect his field. It is alleged that eleven named persons came to the place of occurrence, called out Yogi Singh who went with them. It is alleged that these persons were armed with rifles etc. and as such the informant and other persons at the place of occurrence did not raise any protest for the said kidnapping. 3. The defence case is that the case is completely false and that the appellant has been made accused in this case due to hard feeling between the parties as the grandfather of Rajdeep Yadav the appellant was the Sarpanch of the village, whereas the grandfather of the victim was the Mukhiya of the village. Thus it is stated that there was political rivalry between the parties. It is also stated that Yogi Singh was involved in several criminal cases and he has in fact absconded in order to avoid arrest and face trial in these cases. 4. The prosecution has examined six witnesses in this case. P.W.1 Debobrata Singh has stated in his chief that he was working in his field when he saw Yogi Singh being dragged by 15/16 persons. He has named the appellant as well as 7/8 others. According Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.136 of 2001 dt.17-12-2012 3 to this witness, he was the person who gave information to the wifie of Yogi Singh. He claims that it took 45 minutes to reach the village of Yogi Singh. Not only does this witness state that he had given information to the wife, but, he has also stated that he had given information to Mahendra Singh and to the son of the victim. As per the evidence of P.W.1, it would appear that Mahendra Singh, P.W.5, and Ranjeet Singh P.W.2, and Suman Kumar Singh son of Yogi Singh, P.W.3 were not present at the place of occurrence when the alleged kidnapping took place. P.W.2 Ranjeet Singh was supposedly present at the time of occurrence. He has supported the prosecution case as made out in the F.I.R. This witness has introduced a new case which has been disbelieved by the trial court which is that the son of the victim Yogi Singh had informed him that Sharma Yadav was demanding ransom money for returning Yogi Singh. P.W.3 Suman Kumar Singh who was also present at the place of occurrence alongwith the informant at the time of occurrence, named all the accused persons. According to the witness, he had gone to the police station to give the information about the occurrence. He admits that he had spoken to Sharma Yadav regarding the said incident. He does not disclose what had transpired between them. He was cross-examined in order to show that the I.O. had come to the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.136 of 2001 dt.17-12-2012 4 village two days after the occurrence and that he was examined by the I.O. on the date the informant gave his fardbeyan. P.W.5 is the informant in this case. He has supported the case made out in the FIR in this case by stating that his brother had been kidnapped by the named accused persons specifically Sharma Yadav who was a co-accused in the incident. According to the informant, he had gone to the police station and had disclosed the said occurrence to the Officer-in-charge on 17.1.98. He denies that there are criminal cases pending against Yogi Singh. He admits that he lives separately to his brother and that he is financially better off than his brother. He denies that Yogi’s son used to work as auto driver at Delhi. He also denies that Yogi’s son had informed him about the demand of ransom. He denies that Debobrata had disclosed that he had seen the occurrence while he was cutting grass in the field. The last witness to be examined in this case is the I.O. who has supported the fact that he had gone to the place of occurrence, examined it and that he got news of the occurrence while he was in the main market. The I.O. has specifically denies that Mahendra Prasad Singh had visited the police station on 17.1.98, rather his statement is to the contrary, which is that when he got information about the occurrence, he suo motu came to the house of Mahendra Prasad Singh where he took the fardbeyan and examined some Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.136 of 2001 dt.17-12-2012 5

Applicable IPC Section: 354

Statute Text:
Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty. Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will there by outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.