Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.142 of 2012 ====================================================== Pradeep Sahni, Son of Late Raj Kumar Sahni, resident of village-Manikpur, P.S.-Minapur, District-Muzaffarpur. .... .... Appellant Versus 1. Ram Sresth Sahni son of Munshi Sahni. 2. Bhola Sahni son of Jailal Sahni. Both residents of village-Manikpur, P.S.-Meenapur, District- Muzaffarpur. .... .... Respondents For the Appellant: Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv. Mr. Nirmal Kr. Sinha No. 3, Adv. For the State: Mr. S.N. Prasad (APP) CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH) C.A.V. ORDER ********** 3 17-02-2012 The present appeal has been filed by the appellant claiming himself to be a victim, in terms of Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order dated 11.11.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No. 119/01 by which respondent nos. 1 and 2 have been acquitted from the charges levelled against them under [STATUTE] . The prosecution was initiated on the basis of a complaint filed by P.W.-6 Jagiya Devi. The complaint was referred to the police by the learned C.J.M., Muzaffarpur in exercise of powers conferred under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for institution of F.I.R. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.142 of 2012 (3) dt.17-02-2012 2 / 6 2 and taking up the investigation. Accordingly, a criminal case, being Meenapur P.S. Case No. 69 of 1997 was registered under [STATUTE] against respondent nos. 1 and 2 and investigation was taken up. In brief the prosecution case, according to P.W.-6 Jagiya Devi is that she had gone to collect dry leaves in the Lichi orchard on 21.3.1997 at about 11 a.m. Respondent no. 1 Ram Shresth Sahni and respondent no. 2 Bhola Sahni came near the complainant. They caught hold of her and threw her on the ground and, thereafter, both the accused persons ravished her one after another. She tried to raise alarm, but, the respondents put a ‘Gamchha’ (towel) over her mouth. P.W.-6 has alleged that she first went to the police station but the police did not register F.I.R. She, thereafter, went to the court and filed a complaint. The learned C.J.M. referred her complaint to police, pursuant to which, F.I.R. was instituted and investigation was taken up. Upon conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted in the case and the offence being triable by the court of sessions, the records were committed to the court of sessions from the court of the Magistrate. The charges were framed against respondent nos. 1 & 2 for having committed the offence punishable under [STATUTE] , to which, they pleaded not guilty and, accordingly, the trial commenced. In course of trial altogether seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W.-2 Vishwanath Sah, P.W.-3 Ramu Sahni and P.W.-5 Mahendra Sahni were declared hostile. P.W.-1 Kamal Rai, P.W.-4 Mostt. Ramrati Devi and P.W.-6 Jagiya Devi have supported the prosecution case. P.W.-7 Naresh Singh had simply submitted charge sheet in the case. As a matter of fact, he did not investigate the case but had submitted charge sheet on the basis of investigation conducted by some Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.142 of 2012 (3) dt.17-02-2012 3 / 6 3 other Police Officer. P.W.-6, though, supports her initial version while deposing in the court but has not stated that any one else was present at the place of occurrence while the accused persons ravished her. In cross-examination, she has admitted that she was never taken to doctor for medical examination. P.W.-1 Kamal Rai has stated that he was a witness to the occurrence. In his presence, the accused persons committed rape upon the victim Jagiya Devi. He is said to have given his statement before the police under Section 161 Cr. P.C. When his attention was drawn towards his previous statement made before police that no such statement was given by him in course of investigation, he denied the same. He admitted in cross- examination that his house was situated at a distance of 1 km. from the house of the victim. He could not state that after how many days his statement was recorded by the police. He further stated that apart from him, P.W.-5 Mahendra Sahni, P.W.-2 Vishwanath Sah and P.W.-3 Ramu Sahni were also present at the time when the accused persons committed rape upon the victim. P.W.-4 Mostt. Ramrati Devi also claims to be an eye-witness to the occurrence of rape. Both P.W.-1 and P.W.-4 are chance witnesses. P.W.-4 has also stated that at the time of occurrence, apart from her, P.W.-1 Kamal Rai, P.W.-2 Vishwanath Sah, P.W.-3 Ramu Sahni and P.W.-5 Mahendra Sahni were also present, who had seen the occurrence. Both P.W.-1 and P.W.-4 were suggested that one Tetar Devi had filed a case against Bhuwaneshwar Sahni and others including the husband of the victim in which the accused Bhola Sahni and Ram Shersth Sahni were Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.142 of 2012 (3) dt.17-02-2012 4 / 6 4 witnesses and due to that enmity the victim Jagiya Devi had lodged a false case. On behalf of the defence, two witnesses were examined. They are D.W.-1 Hari Lal Sahni and D.W.-2 Pradeep Sahni. D.W.-1 Hari Lal Sahni stated that he is a co-villager of the victim. On the date of occurrence, no incident of occurrence had taken place and a false case was instituted by Jagiya Devi. He has further stated that one Tetar Devi had earlier filed a criminal case against Bhuwaneshwar Sahni in which the accused Bhola Sahni and Ram Shresth Sahni were witnesses and due to that enmity Jagiya Devi had filed a false case. D.W.-2 Pradeep Sahni is an important witness. It is he, who has filed the present appeal. He claims himself to be a victim in terms of Section 2(wa). He has stated that his mother is already dead. While dep

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.