Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.632 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Md. Nakimuddin S/O Sheikh Liyakat Resident Of Village- Khulni, P.S- Shakund,District- Bhagalpur. .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. Md. Parvej S/O Sheikh Haneef Resident Of Village- Khulni, P.S- Shakund, District- Bhagalpur. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA) 2 09-07-2012 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State. The appellant has assailed the judgment and order dated 10.04.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No.727 of 2008 whereby the learned trial court acquitted the sole accused-opposite party no.2 from the charge under [STATUTE] . The Trial Court has discussed the reasons of acquittal of the accused person because there were contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses. The other inconsistencies have also been noted by the trial court in the impugned judgment. The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment and it has been submitted that eye witnesses Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.632 of 2012 (2) dt.09-07-2012 2 have supported the prosecution case, but the accused has been acquitted though there were sufficient evidence on the record. The trial court has considered the defence and the reason for acquittal has been given. The trial court has discussed the evidence of I.O., who has stated that the house was having a boundary of 12 feets wall and he has further stated that before the institution of the present case, a Sanha was lodged by the father of the accused to the effect that the informant and his family are trying to get the son married to Yasmin. All the circumstances appearing on the record were considered and the court has found that offence was not made. Considering the judgment of the trial court, there appears no reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. This appeal is without merit and accordingly, it is dismissed. V.K. Pandey/- (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.