Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) NO.36 OF 2000 =========================================================== AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 11TH JANUARY, 2000 AND THE ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 12TH JANUARY, 2000 PASSED BY SHRI GOPAL MAHTO, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE VIII, GAYA IN SESSIONS TRIAL NO. 262 OF 1999/298 OF 1983 ARISING OUT OF MUFFASSILO POLICE STATION CASE NO. 160 OF 1982 =========================================================== SURESH KUMAR, SON OF ISRI LAL SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA HEAD MANPUR TELI TOLA, POLICE STATION MUFFASSIL, BUNIYADGANJ, DISTRICT GAYA .... .... APPELLANT/S VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... RESPONDENT/S =========================================================== APPEARANCE : FOR THE APPELLANT/S : MR. NASRUL HUDA KHAN, ADVOCATE MR. HARUN QUARESHI, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT/S : MS. ABHA SINGH, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 24-08-2012 Sheema Ali Khan, J. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 11th January, 2000 and the order of sentence dated 12th January, 2000 passed by the VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Sessions Trial No. 262 of 1999/298 of 1983 whereby the Trial Court had found and held the appellant guilty for the offences punishable under [STATUTE] and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years. 2. The case was instituted on the statement of the father of the victim girl Manik Chand Sao. The informant was living in Kolkata along with his family in a rented premise on the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.36 of 2000 dt.24-08-2012 2 / 7 2 first floor. His daughter who was supposedly 14 years of age was not found in her room. It has been categorically stated that Uma Kumari, the victim girl, had left the house taking her clothes along with her. The grandfather of the appellant Suresh Kumar was living in the ground floor as a tenant. It is said that Suresh Kumar often visits his grandfather. The informant suspected that his daughter had been kidnapped by Suresh Kumar. Later on, he began to look for Suresh Kumar and travelled to Gaya where he found his daughter and Suresh Kumar. 3. After recovery of the victim girl, she was sent to the Remand Home. Her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after taking all due precautions. At the time of recording the statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court assessed the age of Uma Kumari as 18 years. In her statement, Uma Kumari has categorically stated that she had left her house taking her belongings without any pressures or force. She claim that she married Suresh Kumar in the Court and she wants to live with Suresh Kumar and even follow him to jail, if necessary. 4. During the trial, seven witnesses have been examined, out of which PW 6Lakhan Ram and PW 7 Ajay Kumar are formal witnesses. Dr. (Smt.) Krishna Choudhary has been examined as PW 4. The victim girl was examined by the doctor and according to the X-ray, the age of the girl is assessed as 17 years. The doctor has found no sign of rape but has found Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.36 of 2000 dt.24-08-2012 3 / 7 3 laceration of hymen. 5. PW 1 Achhya Lal Rabidas is a formal witness on the question of recovery of the victim girl. He has proved her signature and the signature of the appellant at the time of recovery. 6. PW 2 Subhash Kumar Singh is the Magistrate, who had recorded the statement of the victim girl Uma Kumari under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. PW 3 Uma Kumari is the victim girl herself. According to her, she became friendly with Suresh as he used to come to visit his grandfather who resides in the ground floor. Suresh had convinced her to visit Gaya for few days. Accordingly, she left her house with him. After reaching Gaya, he had forcibly married her by threatening her. After marriage, both lived as husband and wife. This witness admits that she had stated before the Magistrate that she has left her house out of her own free will and that she wanted to live with Suresh. Paragraph 11 of her deposition is important, as it indicates, that it was Suresh who had released her from the Remand Home and she went and lived with Suresh after her release. Later on, she claims that she had run away to her father’s house. This witness has tried to explain the statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by saying that it was because of fear of Suresh, she had given the statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure showing her willingness to live with Suresh. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.36 of 2000 dt.24-08-2012 4 / 7 4 The explanation that has come in her evidence is not believable in view of the fact that there was no pressure on her to go with Suresh after her release from the Remand Home. 8. PW 5 Manik Chand Sao is the informant of this case. He has supported the case as made out in the First Information Report. He denies that his daughter had left his house after taking permission from her mother or that she had left with Suresh without there being any element of threat. It may be pointed out that both, PWs 3 and 5 have stated that the appellant came from a different caste. In fact PW 3 goes so far to state that her father had told her that it is not possible for her to marry out of her caste. 9. Counsel for the appellant submits that the statement of the victim girl as well as the boy indicates that both of them had got married because they were in love and they continued to live together even after her release from the Remand Home. It is submitted that it was only because of the intervention of the father of the victim girl that the girl left Suresh Kumar and returned to her father. Her statement before the Court is contrary to what she has stated under Section 161 or 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedur

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.