Patna High Court
Laxhmi Yadav And Ors vs State Of Bihar on 19 June, 2024
Author: Sunil Kumar Panwar
Bench: Sunil Kumar Panwar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.778 of 2006
======================================================
1. Laxhmi Yadav Son of Late Dasrath Yadav
2. Bidhyanand Yadav Son of Late Andu Yadav
3. Binod Yadav son of Laxhmi Yadav
4. Ashok Yadav son of Laxhmi Yadav
5. Umesh yadav Son of Bidhyanand Yadav
All are resident of Village- Hatha Bhakhri, P.S. Kursakanta, District-
Araria
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Vipul Sinha, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent/s : Mr. A.M.P. Mehta, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 19-06-2024
Heard Mr. Vipul Sinha, learned Amicus curiae
on behalf of the appellants and Mr. A.M.P. Mehta,
learned APP appearing for the State.
2. This appeal has been preferred by the
appellants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
judgment of conviction dated 24.8.2006 and order of
sentence dated 25.8.2006 passed by the learned 1 st
Additional Sessions Judge, Araria, in Sessions Trial No.
643/2001 & 92/2001, whereby and whereunder the
appellants/ convicts were convicted under Sections
376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and they were
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.778 of 2006 dt.19-06-2024
2/12
years for the offences punishable under Sections
376/511 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on
15.9.2000
at about 6:00 a.m while the complainant was
cleaning utensils at 'Chapanal' in front of her house, the
appellants Laxmi Yadav and Bidhyanand Yadav rushed
there and caught her from behind. They told her to
proceed towards bari upon which the complainant
opposed, thereafter, both accused persons pushed her
towards bari and torn her sari & blouse and tried to
commit rape. When the complainant protested and
raised alarm, the appellant Laxmi Yadav called his other
associates who are appellant Nos. 3, 4 & 5. After that,
all the accused persons tried to commit rape with the
complainant after abusing and they also assaulted her.
On hulla, the witnesses namely Shail Kumar Yadav,
Udyachand Yuadav and Rajendra Yadav rushed to the
place of occurrence and saved the complainant.
4. On the basis of a complaint, Complaint Case
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.778 of 2006 dt.19-06-2024
No. 1866C of 2000 was registered against the
appellants for the offences punishable under sections
376, 511, 504, 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
Thereafter, cognizance was taken and the case was
committed to the court of Sessions for trial.
5. In order to bring home the guilt to the
accused, altogether five witnesses had been examined
on behalf of the prosecution. The defence had also
examined one witness on his behalf.
6. P.W.1, Udyachand Yadav in his
examination-in-chief has deposed that at the time of
occurrence, he was at his door which is in front of the
tube-well (place of occurrence) where the complainant
(P.W.-4) was cleaning her utensils. He further deposed
that he saw that the appellants Laxmi Yadav and
Bidyanand Yadav came there from behind and caught
the complainant started draging her towards kelabari.
The accused persons torn her clothes and tried to
commit rape. On raising alarm, this witness and other
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.778 of 2006 dt.19-06-2024
witnesses namely Shail Kumar Yadav and Rajendra
Yadav rushed at the place of occurrence and saved the
complainant. This witness has also deposed that
appellant Binod Yadav assaulted the complainant when
the accused persons failed to commit rape upon the
complainant.
7. P.W.2, Shail Kumar Yadav has deposed
in his examination-in-chief that at the time of
occurrence, he was going to attend the nature's call.
He saw that appellant Laxmi Yadav caught hold of the
complainant and dragging her towards 'bari'
whereafter, appellants Bidyanand and Laxmi Yadav
torn her clothes due to which she became totally
naked. He further deposed that on halla, he, Rajendra
and others proceeded there and saved the victim from
the clutches of the accused appellants.
8. P.W.3, Rajendra Yadav in his
examination-in-chief has deposed that he had gone to
see his field at about 6:00 a.m on the date of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.778 of 2006 dt.19-06-2024
occurrence, when he saw appellants Bidyanand Yadav
and Laxmi Yadav were catching hold of the
complainant and dragging her towards bari where they
torn her sari and blouse. He further deposed that he
did not see the accused trying to rape the complainant
but the complainant herself had said so.
9. P.W. 4 Dewaki Devi is the complainant
herself, who in her examination-in-chief has deposed
that on the alleged date of occurrence, at about 6:00
a.m, when she was cleaning utensils at ' chapanal' then
the appellants Laxmi Yadav and Bidhyanand Yadav
came there and caught hold of her from behind. She
further deposed that they started carrying her towards
'bari' and torn her sari & blouse. Thereafter, in order
to commit rape, appellant Laxmi Yadav pushed her
down. When the complainant objected, appellant
Laxmi Yadav called his other associates. On hulla,
witnesses Udaychand, Shail Kumar and Rajendra
reached there and saved her from being raped.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.778 of 2006 dt.19-06-2024
10. P.W.-5, Deonandan Diwakar is a
formal witness who has proved the complaint petition
as Exhibit-1.
11. The defence has also examined one
Md. Sufi as D.W. 1 who has deposed in his
examination-in-chief that he is the Mukhiya of the
Panchayat and there was a dispute between the
appellants and the husband of the complainant as he
was part of the panchayati. He further deposed that a
proceeding under Section 107 and 144 Cr.P.C was
also initiated against them from before.
12. Mr. Vipul Sinha, learned Amicus Curiae,
appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that
admittedly, all the material P.W.s are closely related to
the informant and are highly interested. During the
course of investigation, not a single independent witness
has come forward to claim himself/herself to be the eye
witness to the occurrence. It is the case of the
prosecution that the occurrence took place on
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.778 of 2006 dt.19-06-2024
15.09.2000 at 6:00 a.m in the morning but instead of
registering an F.I.R, a complaint was filed in the next
day on 16.09.2000 which itself creates doubt over the
authenticy of the prosecution version. The parties were
on litigating terms from before as the proceedings under
Sections 107 and 144 Cr.P.C were also initiated against
them from before. Hence, to settle the personal vendetta
with the accused appellants, this false case has been
registered against them. Moreover, the recovered clothes
were not sent for any chemical examination neither from
bare perusal of the records, it appears that the
victim/complainant was medically examined.
13. In contra, learned A.P.P appearing on
behalf of the State has stated that the appellants made
an attempt to ravish the complainant and the witnesses
have also supported the case of the prosecution.
14. From perusal of the records and on going
through the evidences, this Court finds that all the
prosecution witnesses are highly interested witnesses.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.778 of 2006 dt.19-06-2024
The offence relates to attempt of rape which comes
within the purview of cognizable offence and for the
cognizable offence, it is prerequisites that F.I.R should
be registered. But in the instant case, instead of
registering an F.I.R, a complaint was filed by taking a
plea that Officer-in-charge had not the registered the
F.I.R. Section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C facilitates that any
person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in
charge of a police station to record the information
under cognizable offence, he/she may send the
substance of such information, in writing and by post, to
the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied
that such information discloses the commission of a
cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case
himself or direct an investigation to be made by any
police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided
by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers
of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to
that offence. Hence, this Court finds lacuna for not
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.778 of 2006 dt.19-06-2024
lodging the F.I.R in this case.
15. From perusal of the evidence of the victim
(P.W. 4), it appears that she had only deposed about the
complicity of two accused persons namely Laxmi Yadav
and Bidhyanand Yadav but in the complaint petition, she
had named all the five accused persons who are
appellants before this Court and alleged that they have
committed the alleged offence. She did not whisper in
her deposition in the trial court about rest three
convicts/appellants. According to her evidence in
examination-in-chief, she had specifically alleged that
Laxmi Yadav and Bidhyanand Yadav came, caught hold
her from behind and dragged her towards bari,
thereafter appellant Laxmi Yadav opened her sari and
appellant Bidhyanand Yadav torn her blouse and
attempted to ravish her but just thereafter, all the
prosecution witnesses (P.W.s 1, 2, 3) came there and
saved her from the clutches of the accused appellants.
In her cross-examination also, the victim (P.W. 4) did
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.778 of 2006 dt.19-06-2024
not whisper about the other appellants except appellants
Laxmi Yadav and Bidhyanand Yadav. But, in her cross-
examination, she had deposed that Laxmi Yadav and
Bidhyanand Yadav misbehaved with her and after one
hour of misbehaving by both the appellants, the
prosecution witnesses (P.W.s 1, 2 and 3) came at the
place of occurrence and saved her which contradicts her
own evidence in examination-in-chief.
16. From scrutinizing the victim's (P.W. 4)
above noted deposition, it is apparent that P.W.s 1, 2,
and 3 had not seen the occurrence and they were not
present at the time of committing the offence. It is a
general rule that conviction can be awarded on the basis
of interested witnesses but evidence of witnesses P.W.s
1, 2, 3 are not be able to believe because they deposed
contradictory evidence which is not credible and
trustworthy. According to the evidence of the victim
(P.W. 4), the appellants Laxmi Yadav and Bidhyanand
Yadav caught hold her and torn her blouse but the said
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.778 of 2006 dt.19-06-2024
blouse has not been exhibited as material exhibit. From
perusal of the prosecution evidence, it is also apparent
that the victim sustained injuries on her person at the
time of occurrence but there is no medical evidence on
record to support and corroborate the prosecution case
in respect of the fact that the victim (P.W.) 4 has
sustained injuries on her person. Moreover, both the
parties were on litigating terms from before. There is an
inordinate delay of one day in registering a case without
explaining the delay. Hence, the prosecution has failed
to establish its case beyond the shadow of all reasonable
doubts with respect to the manner and motive of the
occurrence. Moreover, there is contradiction in the
evidences of the prosecution witnesses and most of the
witnesses are highly interested witnesses. Hence, the
appellants are entitled to get the benefits of doubt.
17. In that view of the matter, the judgment
of conviction dated 24.8.2006 and order of sentence
dated 25.8.2006 passed by the learned 1 st Additional
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.778 of 2006 dt.19-06-2024
Sessions Judge, Araria, in Sessions Trial No. 643/2001
& 92/2001, is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
18. The appellants are acquitted of all the
charges after getting the benefits of doubt.
19. The appellants are all along on bail. They
are discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds.
20. Accordingly, the appeals stand allowed.
21. This Court expresses the appreciation for
the efforts taken by Mr. Vipul Sinha, learned Amicus
Curiae who had insisted for assisting the Court in the
matter. This Court directs the Patna High Court Legal
Services Committee to pay to Mr. Vipul Sinha a sum of
Rs. 7000/-(Seven Thousands) towards his professional
fee for extending valuable assistance to this Court in
deciding this appeal.
(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J)
Shageer/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Transmission Date .....06/2024
