1 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.413 OF 2004 - - - - Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8.4.2004 and 15.4.2004 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Buxar, in Sessions Trial No. 190 of 2000. - - - - UMAKANT BHAR @ BIDEO son of Daroga Rai alias Daroga Bhar, resident of Bichala Tola, Jalilpur, P.S. Rajpur, District Buxar … … Appellant Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR … … Respondent For the appellant: Shri Binod Kumar Singh Shri Subhash Kumar For the State : Shri Ashwini Kumar Sinha, A.P.P. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. MRIDULA MISHRA THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARNIDHAR JHA - - - - Mridula Mishra & Dharnidhar Jha, JJ.- The sole appellant was convicted for committing offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced R.I. for 12 years by the judgment and order dated 8.4.2004 and 15.4.2004 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Buxar, in Sessions Trial No. 190 of 2000. 2. The prosecution case as disclosed in the F.I.R. was that the informant, father of the victim, on 29.6.2000 had gone in the early morning to do the work of labourer in the nearby Village. On the same day at about 5 P.M. he came to know from his co-villager that appellant Umakant Bhar alias Bideo had committed rape upon his daughter who was aged about five years. When he came back to his house he found his daughter lying unconscious and blood was oozing out from her private 2 part, her pant was blood stained. When the victim girl regained consciousness she narrated the incident stating that, when she was playing with the children of the school, the appellant came and took her towards the dilapidated portion of the school and committed rape upon her by putting cloth in her mouth. The daughter of the informant came to her house and narrated this to her aunt. The informant gave an information to the local Dafadar who informed the police. Thereafter, the F.I.R. of Rajpur P.S.Case No.46 of 2000 was registered under Section 376 of the Indian penal Code. 3. After completing investigation the police submitted charge sheet, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial. Ultimately, the trial ended in the conviction and sentence awarded as indicated in the first paragraph of the present judgment. 4. 11 witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of the charge. P.W. 3 is the informant who has supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.4, Fula Devi is the aunt of the victim girl. P.W. 5 Saraswati Devi, P.W. 6 Budhia Devi and P.W. 7 Lalita Devi who were the ladies of neighbourhood of the informant have also supported the prosecution case. P.W. 9 Sumitra Kumari is the victim girl who has fully supported the case of the prosecution and also deposed that after the 3 offence was committed she went o her house and narrated the incident to her aunt, P.W. 4 Fula Devi. P.W. 11 Dr. Hari Narain Pandey who was one of the member of the Medical Board consisting of Dr.Babita Kumari, Dr. Deepak Prasad, had examined the victim girl, and proved injury report Ext. 5. The Medical Board’s report disclosed that Undergarments of the vagina was found stained with blood. Hymen was ruptured margin ragged, no bleeding. The report of the Medical Board was sufficient to prove that it was a case of rape. Considering the evidence on record, the trial court convicted the appellant under Section 376 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 12 years. 5. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was arrested on 29.6.2000 and since then he has continuously remained in custody till date. He has completed ten years and twenty six days in custody and as the appellant has completed almost the period of sentence as sukch he should be released. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record of the trial court, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction passed against the appellant. So far the sentence is concerned, considering that the appellant 4 has remained in custody for over ten years, it is modified to the period already undergone by him. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with the above modification in sentence. The appellant, who is in custody, is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. ( Mridula Mishra, J.) ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.) Patna High Court The 26th July, 2010 Kanth/N.A.F.R.