IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.584 of 2005 (Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 20.9.2005 passed by the Additional Distt. & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. 1), Kishanganj, in Sessions Trial No. 618 of 2004, Trial No. 29 of 2004) ======================================== Parma Nand Singh, S/o Sri Kishan Lal Singh, Resident of Village Dangipokhar, P.S. Pothia, Distt. Kishanganj .... .... Appellant Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent ======================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Radha Mohan Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar No. 1. A.P.P. ======================================== P R E S E N T HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The Appellant has been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years in Sessions Trial No. 618 of 2004/Trial No. 29 of 2004 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Kishanganj, by a Judgment dated 20.9.2005. 2. The case of the prosecution according to the PW-3 the Prosecutrix whose complaint was that she had been raped by the present Appellant about two and half months ago and, thereafter, on the promise of the Appellant to marry with her, sexual relationship had been established between the two. When the Prosecutrix asked the Appellant to marry her, he refused at which a Panchayti was held where accused persons refused to acknowledge the decision of Panchayat and, thereafter, the present complaint was instituted. 3. On behalf of the Prosecution, three witnesses were examined. PW-1 who happened to be the uncle of the Prosecutrix has 2 corroborated this fact and stated that he came to know of the occurrence only two and half months later when the Panchayti was held. Similarly, PW-2 who happens to be the maternal grandfather of the Prosecutrix also stated that he learnt about the occurrence on the date of Panchayti. The Prosecutrix happens to be about 22 years of age on the date of examination during trial and in absence of any medical opinion that the Prosecutrix was a minor on the date of occurrence, the question of consent would be an important issue. On the facts of the case, it is difficult to conclusively opine that in fact the Appellant had established sexual relationship with the Prosecutrix against her will. This especially so since the matter was not reported by the Prosecutrix for two and half months which naturally raises a suspicion against the prosecution as to whether it was a case of consent or whether the physical relationship was established against the will of the prosecutrix. 4. In the result, the Appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant in Sessions Trial No. 618 of 2004/Trial No. 29 of 2004 by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. 1), Kishanganj, is hereby set aside. 5. The Appellant is discharged from the liability of his bail bond. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated, the 24th June, 2011 NAFR/S.ALI