Case Facts:
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.918 of 2012 (3) dt.10-10-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.918 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Kalwatiya Devi W/O Laljeet Ravidas R/O Vill-Madhopur, P.S.- Sikandra, Distt-Jamui .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Sakaldeo Ravidas S/O Dhanu Ravidas R/O Vill-Madhopur, P.S.- Sikandra, Distt-Jamui .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ansul, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA) 3 10-10-2012 This memo of appeal has been preferred against the part of the judgment whereby the respondent no. 2 was acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. V, Jamui in Sessions Trial No. 311 of 2008/T.R. No. 40 of 2009 relating to G.R. No. 757A of 2002 arising out of Sikandra P.S. Case No. 95 of 2002 on 10.11.2011. Altogether five persons were charged for the offence under [STATUTE] but only two persons have been convicted under sections Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.918 of 2012 (3) dt.10-10-2012 302/307, 364, 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Respondent no. 2 is one of the three accused persons who were acquitted from the charges levelled against them. The First Information Report was registered against two persons, namely, Karu Manjhi and Dhanu Rabidas and subsequently the informant in her further statement has also not named others. Respondent no. 2 was neither named in the FIR nor his name has come under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Subsequently the prosecution case was developed too much and extent of development was that the father and son both were made accused under [STATUTE] . The learned Trial Court found a number of absurdities in the prosecution version with regard to implication of respondent no. 2 and two others, and so order of acquittal was passed. An order of acquittal can be interfered only when it is apparently illegal or absurd reasons have been given for acquittal. In this case the reasons for distinguishing the case of respondent no. 2 from others are sound. Secondly the three persons have been Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.918 of 2012 (3) dt.10-10-2012 acquitted and acquittal of only one has been challenged which also appears to be motivated at the behest of the appellant. In view of the discussions made above, we find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly, dismissed. Since this appeal has been dismissed on merit, there is no need to pass any order on the Limitation petition. avin/- (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.