Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.818 of 2006 =========================================================== 1. Subhan Mansoori son of late Jumman Mansoori. 2. Subharati Mansoori son of Kailu Mansoori 3. Idrish Mansoori @ Md. Idrish son of Nazir Mansoori All residents of village- Sijaulia P. S. Phulparas District Madhubani. .... .... Appellant/s Versus State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s with Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1020 of 2006 =========================================================== Md. Kasim Mansoori son of Anwar Mansoori, resident of village Sijaulia P. S. Phulparas P. O. Sijaulia, District- Madhubani. .... .... Appellant/s Versus State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== {Against the judgment of conviction dated 14.8.2006 and order of sentence dated 19.8.2006 passed by Sri Ram Dhani Sah, learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-V, Madhubani in Sessions Trial No. 389 of 2003} =================================================== Appearance : (In CR. APP (DB) No. 818 of 2006) (In CR. APP (DB) No. 1020 of 2006) For the Appellant/s : Mr. B. P. Pandey, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jagnnath Singh, Adv. Mr. S. C. Giri, Adv. Mr. P. K. Sinha, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sinha, APP =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL) Date: 06-11-2012 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 818 of 2006 filed by Subhan Mansoori, Subharati Mansoori and Idrish Mansoori @ Md. Idrish Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.818 of 2006 dt.06-11-2012 2 and Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1020 of 2006 filed by Md. Kasim Mansoori have been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 14.8.2006 and order of sentence dated 19.8.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-V, Madhubani in Sessions Trial No. 389 of 2003 by which they have been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2)(G) i.e. 376/34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. 2. Since both the appeals arise out of Phulpras P. S. Case No. 43 of 2003 corresponding to G. R. No. 298 of 2003, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 7.4.2003 at about 6.30 p.m. Sushila Kumari aged about 14 years (P.W. 7), daughter of the informant Ram Swaroop Bhur (P.W. 8) was coming back to her house with her three friends, namely, Sakuntala Kumari (P.W. 4), Binita Kumar (P.W. 9) and Kaushalaya Kumari (P.W. 5) after worshiping at Durgasathan, Bajraha. When they reached at a distance of three and a half kilometer north from Bajraha Tola, the appellant Subhan Mansoori Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.818 of 2006 dt.06-11-2012 3 aged about 30 years, Idrish Mansoori aged about 28 years, Shobharati Mansoori aged about 27 years and Md. Kasim Mansoori aged about 25 years chased them and caught hold of the victim (P.W. 7), took her in the wheat crop field and all of them committed rape one after another. Her three friends (P.Ws. 4, 5 and 9) came running to the village and informed about the occurrence to the informant. The informant (P.W. 8) and others came to the place of occurrence where they found the victim (P.W. 7) lying unconscious in the wheat field and the accused had fled away. Brahmadeo Rai (P.W. 2) told that he had seen the occurrence. Other witnesses have also seen the occurrence. 4. On the basis of written report of the informant (P.W. 8) Phoolparas P. S. Case No. 43 of 2003 dated 17.4.2003 was registered against the appellants for the offence punishable under [STATUTE] . After investigation charge-sheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken. The case was committed to the court of session. The charge was framed against the appellants which they denied and claimed to be tried, as such, the trial proceeded against them. 5. The defence of the appellants is complete denial of the occurrence and false implication in the case. After trial all the appellants have been found guilty and have been sentenced as Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.818 of 2006 dt.06-11-2012 4 aforesaid. 6. This Court is required to reappraise the evidence and to consider as to whether the prosecution has been able to substantiate its case beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts or not ? 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case due to land dispute. The informant was bataidar of the accused and when the land was taken back, they have been falsely implicated in this case. He has also submitted that the alleged occurrence has taken place on 7.4.2003, whereas, the complaint case has been lodged by the father of the victim on 17.4.2003 and there has been no explanation for such delay. 8. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the victim is a minor unmarried girl. She has been gang raped by the appellants who are the influential person of the locality and due to their apprehension there has been delay in lodging the FIR. The delay has been properly explained by the prosecution as it appears from prosecution witnesses. He has also submitted that there is no motive for false implication as it appears from the prosecution evidence that there has been no land dispute between the informant and the appellants. The evidence of the ocular witness is quite Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.818 of 2006 dt.06-11-2012 5 natural and convincing and it has rightly been relied upon by the learned trial court. This Court is not required to interfere with the impugned judgment. 9. The prosecution has examined the following witnesses to prove its case:- P.W. 1 Kapil Deo Sahu, P. W. 2 Brahmdeo Rai, P. W. 3 Jit Narain Bhatt

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.