Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 157 OF 1996 In the matter of an appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ************ Rajendra Sah, S/o Tribhangi Sah, resident of Village- Baskitaru, P.S.-Chandramauli, District-Jamui. ……(Appellant) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Respondent) ************* For the Appellant : Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Adv. (appeared as Amicus Curiae) For the State : Mr. R.B. Roy “Raman”, APP. ************** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to RI for seven years in S.Tr. No. 33 of 1990 by Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Munger by judgment dated 06.06.1996. 2. The case of the prosecution is that while the prosecutrix was cutting grass in the maize filed of Sona Sah on 12.08.1988 the appellant caught hold of her and committed rape and fled away thereafter. 3. During trial the prosecution in all examined eight witnesses out of whom P.W. 5 is the prosecutrix whereas P.W. 4 is the mother of the prosecutrix. P.W. 1 is a corroborative witness who had seen the appellant fleeing away from the place of occurrence whereas P.W. 2 has been declared hostile. P.W. 3 has been tendered whereas P.W. 6 is a seizure witness. P.W. 7 is the Doctor who examined the 2 prosecutrix and P.W. 8 is other formal witness who proved the First Information Report. Unfortunately the prosecution has not examined the Investigating Officer in the present case. 4. One defence witness was examined on behalf of the appellant on the point that in fact no occurrence of rape has taken place on the date of occurrence but in fact the appellant had been assaulted for which a panchayati had been held and when the matter could not be sorted out a case was instituted one day earlier i.e. Chandramandih P.S. Case No. 51/88 under Sections 341, 342 and 323/34 IPC. The defence also brought on record Exhibit B which was the injury report of Rajmani Sah the brother of the appellant which included grievous injury as per the X-ray report. 5. On appreciation of evidence of the witnesses without going into unnecessary details, I find that P.W. 5 the prosecutrix was examined by the Doctor and opined to be about 14 years of age and the Doctor found the hymen ruptured but presumably since two days had elapsed from the date of occurrence she was of the opinion that no sign of recent intercourse was present on her. P. W. 5 in her oral evidence has given a detailed version in which the appellant has sexually assaulted her. The evidence of P.W. 4 who is the mother of the victim as also P.W. 1 who had seen the appellant 3 fleeing away from the place of occurrence supported this fact in her examination-in-chief. No doubt the defence has tried to demolish the case of the prosecution on the ground that there was a counter-version of the occurrence but the same is denied by the prosecution as also the defence witness has frontly conceded that he had no personal knowledge of the occurrence. Under the circumstances, the defence raised by the appellant is not reliable. 6. Considering the fact that the prosecution has succeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt both on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence, I am not inclined to interfere in the present appeal. In the result, the same is dismissed. 7. The Trial Court is directed to take all steps to take the appellant into custody. 8. Let this order be handed over to Mr. Ravi Ranjan who appeared as amicus curiae for the appellant. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 24th June, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-