GANGA PRASAD MAHTO versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
[2019] 5 S.C.R. 21, Supreme Court of India, 2019
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Facts
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
21
GANGA PRASAD MAHTO
v.
STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 526 of 2019)
MARCH 26, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
s. 376 – Rape – Conviction by courts below – On appeal,
held: It is evident from the facts of the case that prosecution failed
to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt – Accused is entitled to
be acquitted.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The complainant was not examined by the Doctor
after the alleged incident. In absence of any medical examination
done, the prosecution did not examine any doctor in the trial in
support of their case. It was not disputed that similar type of
complaints were being made in past by the complainant against
other persons also and such complaints were later found false. It
was also not disputed that there was enmity between the appellant
and the husband of the prosecutrix, due to which their relations
were not cordial. It had also come in evidence that the prosecutrix
was in the habit of implicating all the persons by making wild
allegations of such nature against those with whom she or/and
her husband were having any kind of disputes. There was no eye
witness to the alleged incident and the one, who was cited as
witness, i.e., PW-2 was a chance witness on whose testimony, a
charge of rape could not be established.  So far as  PW-1, husband
of the complainant, is concerned, he admitted that he was away
and returned to village the next day morning of the incident.
In
the light of the aforementioned reasons, the prosecution has failed
to prove the case of rape alleged by the Complainant (PW-3)
against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant is
acquitted from the charges leveled against him. [Paras 11, 12
and 14] [23-C-G; 24-B]
    [2019] 5 S.C.R. 21
   21
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
22
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 5 S.C.R.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 526 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.01.2014 of the High Court
of  Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 251 of 2002
Rajnish Kumar, Amrendra Singh, Shantanu Kumar, Advs. for the
Appellant.
Abhinav Mukerji, Ms. Bihu Sharma, Ms. Pratishtha Vij,
Ms. Purnima Krishna, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order
dated 30.01.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in
Crl.A. No.251 of 2002 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal
filed by the appellant herein and upheld the order dated 24.04.2002 of
the 4th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Samastipur in Sessions Trial
No.233 of 1999.
3. The appeal involves a short point as would be clear from the
facts stated infra.
4. The appellant was prosecuted and eventually convicted for an
offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter referred to as “IPC”)  and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 7 years by the Sessions Judge. The conviction and
sentence was upheld by the High Court. The appellant (accused) is now
in appeal in this Court against his concurrent conviction/sentence.
5. So, the short question, which arises for consideration in this
appeal, is whether the two Courts below were justified in convicting the
appellant for an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC.
6. PW- 3  lodged a complaint on 15.12.1997 complaining therein
that the appellant in the previous night at around 8.00 PM entered into
her house when she was alone and threatened her by showing pistol and
committed rape on her. This,  in substance,  was the allegation in the
FIR, which was lodged by PW-3 on the next day of the incident.
7. The prosecution examined three witnesses.  Hari Narain Singh
(PW-1) is the husband of the complainant.  Ram Udgar Singh(PW-2)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
23
claims to be the person living near the complainant’s house and PW-3 is
the complainant(prosecutrix).
8. As mentioned above, the Sessions Judge and the High Court
convicted the appellant placing reliance on the evidence of three
prosecution witnesses.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
of the record of the case, we are constrained to allow the appeal and set
aside the impugned order.
10. In our considered opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove
the case of rape alleged against the appellant at the instance of the
complainant(PW-3). This we say for the following reasons:
11. First, the complainant was not examined by the Doctor after
the alleged incident. Second, in absence of any medical examination
done, the prosecution did not examine any doctor in the trial in support of
their case; Third, it was not disputed that similar type of complaints
were being made in past by the complainant against other persons also
and such complaints were later found false; Fourth, it was also not disputed
that there was enmity between the appellant and the husband of the
prosecutrix, due to which their relations were not cordial; Fifth, it had
also come in evidence that the prosecutrix was in habit of implicating all
the persons by making wild allegations of such nature against those with
whom she or/and her husband were having any kind of disputes; Sixth,
there was no eye witness to the alleged incident and the one, who was
cited as
witness, i.e., PW-2 was a chance witness on whose testimony,
a charge of rape could not be established; and lastly, so far as   PW-1,
husband of the complainant, is concerned, he admitted that he was away
and returned to village the next day morning of the incident.
12. In the light of the aforementioned seven reasons, we are of
the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case
of rape alleged by  the Complainant(PW-3) against the appellant beyond
reasonable doubt. In other words, there is no evidence adduced by the
prosecution to prove the commission of the offence of rape by the
appellant on PW-3 and the evidence adduced is not sufficient to prove
the case of rape against the appellant.
13. Both the Courts below were, therefore, not justified in
convicting the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 376
GANGA PRASAD MAHTO v. STATE OF BIHAR
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
24
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 5 S.C.R.
IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven
years. He was entitled for acquittal.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and
is accordingly allowed.  The impugned order is set aside. The appellant
is acquitted from the charges leveled against him. He is accordingly set
free. His bail bonds are accordingly discharged.
Kalpana  K. Tripathy
                                Appeal allowed.