The division judge bench of Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Alok Kumar Pandey of the Patna High Court in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Vs The State of Bihar held that merely because an investigation is perfunctory, that is no ground to completely discard the prosecution case.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the father of the appellant, who is the father of the victim, had been molesting her and had also committed rape. Thereafter, she went to the police station to report about the incident. The victim's brother claims that the appellant had acted in the same way towards his sister on several occasions in the past. The victim's mother committed suicide a few months earlier as a result of the appellant's horrific act. Furthermore, the case was registered under Section 376 of the IPC. Later, Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 was also added. The trial court convicted the appellant.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant contended that the prosecution had not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. It was furthermore contended that even though the victim was medically examined, no conclusive opinion was found in relation to rape. Also, the mother of the victim committed suicide and no cases were lodged by the family members.
Contentions of the State:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state contended that the victim has maintained her claim that the appellant never treated her in a fatherly manner. With the passing of her mother, his actions and behaviour towards her became even worse. This was the sole reason the mother had killed herself.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that it also seems acceptable that the vaginal swab did not include any spermatozoa or other bodies. The appellant secreted his sperm on the victim's clothing and blanket while putting pressure on his daughter. It cannot be stated in such a case that the victim's testimony is contradicted by the medical findings. A later examination of the human body would not reveal any prior sexual offences. The doctor's advice is useless to us in that situation.
It was furthermore observed that the investigating officer accepted in his cross-examination that he had not recorded the statements of the persons residing in the neighbourhood.
It was noted that he had no justification for taking the appellant's clothing as it had never been submitted for forensic examination. It's possible that the investigator did not think of any of these matters when looking into such a serious allegation. However, as is widely established, a perfunctory inquiry does not serve as justification for dismissing the case of the prosecution altogether, particularly in light of the victim's convincing evidence.
Based on these considerations, the Hon’ble Court agreed with the judgment passed by the trial court.
The decision of the court:
With the above direction, the court dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Sanjeev Kumar Vs The State of Bihar
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Pandey
Case No.: Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 726 of 2018
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Ajit Ranjan Kumar, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, APP.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
