CRIMINAL APPEAL No.32 OF 1998 Appeal against the judgment and order dated 12.12.1997 passed im Sessions Trial No. 607/157 of 1995/95 by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram. NARENDRA SINGH, Son of Late Sardar Rabel Singh, Resident of Village-Madal House, Police Station- Madal House, District-Ludhiyana (Punjab) at present resident of Nil Kothi Dehri, Police Station-Dehri (T), District-Rohtas. ------(Appellant) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ------- (Respondent) ------------ For the Appellant : M/S Vikram Deo Singh, Adv. Dharmendra Kumar Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. S.N. Ali, APP ------------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ************ Anjana Prakash, J. The sole appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to RI for ten years by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram. The case of the prosecution according to Rabindra Kaur, PW5 recorded on 04.10.1999 is that eight months earlier i.e. on 08.02.1989 she had been kidnapped by the present appellant and - 2 - thereafter repeatedly raped after having performed the ritual of putting vermillion on her head. She was recovered by her brother after having spent eight months in Haidar Garh, District-Barabanki in Uttar Pradesh and Raipur Chowk, District- Ludhiana in Punjab and she was arrested at the house of the petitioner and she instituted the present case. After investigation the charge-sheet was submitted against the present appellant and his other family members for the offence under Sections 376 and 366A of the Indian Penal Code and put on trial. The prosecution in all examined 10 witnesses out of whom PW 1 Amarjit Kaur is the Bhabhi of Rabindra Kaur, PW 2 Amarjit Kaur is the mother of Rabindra Kaur, PW 3 Baljit Singh is the brother of Rabindra Kaur, PW 4 Mahindra Singh is also the brother of Rabindra Kaur, PW 5 Rabindra Kaur is the victim and PW 6 Sardar Sahindra Singh is the brother of Rabindr Kaur. Apart from these material witnesses certain official witnesses were examined out of whom PW - 3 - 7 Yogendra Singh is the formal in nature and PW 8 Md. A Hussain is the part Investigating Officer, PW 9 Vijay Kumar Singh is the Investigating Officer who submitted the charge-sheet and PW 10 S.N. Lal is also the part Investigating Officer. The defence of the appellant as stated under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was that Rabindra Kaur was a full grown girl and they had on their own sweet-will gone away to Barbanki where they married each other and also got marriage registered and lived there as husband and wife for the next eight months after the expiry of which PW 6 and PW 4 came to his house and took away Rabindra Kaur his wife and instituted the present case on trumped up charges. Needless to say the most important evidence is that of Rabindra Kaur PW 5, the victim herself from whose evidence it is evident that she has given a totally untrustworthy story about having been taken away forcibly by the appellant and thereafter confined for the next eight months. She has lamely attempted to explain that she could not protest in the eight - 4 - months since she was threatened by the appellant therefore she could not run away from the house of the appellant in the interim period. In the present case the Doctor who would have been the best witness on the point of age and physical condition of PW 5 has not been examined by the prosecution and the medical report has also not been brought on record. The prosecution no doubt has brought the document showing that Rabindra Kaur PW 5 was a minor on the date of occurrence but the trial court itself has remarked that it could not really be relied upon. In criminal cases the totality of the case has to be judged from an angle which is totally objective in nature without siding with any of the parties and this court has no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that the entire prosecution case is totally untrustworthy, concocted and imaginary even though all the material witnesses have attempted faithfully to make a case of kidnapping. Merely burdening the court with a number of witnesses on one point does not really bolster the case of the prosecution - 5 - and therefore the evidence of PW 1, PW 2, PW 3, PW 4 and PW 6 or the point of kidnapping is held to be totally untrustworthy for the simple reason that the occurrence took place on 08.02.1989 report of the same given on 04.10.1989 i.e. eight months later and that also by PW 5 Rabindra Kaur herself upon her recovery. In the result the appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside and the appellant is discharged of the liability of the bail bonds. Patna High Court Dated 7th October, 2009 NAFR/Vikash (Anjana Prakash, J.)