Patna High Court
Puja Kumari @ Puja Devi @ Sanju Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 7 January, 2025
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.129 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-63 Year-2010 Thana- SHIVSAGAR District- Rohtas
======================================================
X, C/o Hira Prasad, Resident of Village- Shahpur, P.S.- Sheo Sagar, District-
Rohtas at Sasaram.
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ritesh Nat @ Ritesh Rai, Son of Ram Niwas Rai, Resident of Village-
Shahpur, P.S.- Sheo Sagar, District- Rohtas at Sasaram.
3. Chintu Nat @ Chintu Rai, Son of Chandrama Nat, Resident of Village-
Shahpur, P.S.- Sheo Sagar, District- Rohtas at Sasaram.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dhanendra Chaubey, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, Addl PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 07-01-2025
I.A. No. 1 of 2021
This is an appeal preferred by the victim. In view of
proviso to Section 372 Cr.PC, there would be no need to file an
application seeking leave to file an appeal against acquittal by the
victim.
2. This interlocutory application is, thus, misconceived
and is rejected.
I.A. No. 2 of 2024
3. This interlocutory application has been filed seeking
condonation of delay of 195 days in filing of the appeal. The
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.129 of 2021 dt.07-01-2025
2/13
impugned judgment in this case has been passed on 18.03.2020.
The appeal against the impugned judgment would have been
preferred well within time by 17.06.2020 but due to pandemic
Covid-19 situation, the appeal could not be preferred within the
prescribed period of 90 days. In Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 03 of 2020, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed that the
period from 24.03.2020 to 15.03.2022 shall be excluded from
counting the period of limitation.
4. In the aforesaid view of the matter, there would be no
need to seek condonation of delay as the appeal is to be treated
within time. It has been presented in the Registry on 28.01.2021.
5. Since the appeal is to be treated within time, I.A. No.
2 of 2024 stands disposed of.
6. Heard Mr. Dhanendra Chaubey, learned counsel for
the appellant and Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State.
7. This appeal has been preferred for setting aside the
judgment of acquittal dated 18.03.2020 (hereinafter referred to as
the 'impugned judgment') passed by learned Presiding Officer,
Fast Track Court No. 2, Rohtas at Sasaram (hereinafter referred to
as the 'learned trial court') in Sessions Trial No. 02 of 2011 arising
out of Shiv Sagar P.S. Case No. 63 of 2010.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.129 of 2021 dt.07-01-2025
3/13
8. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial court
has been pleased to acquit the Respondent Nos. 2 to 3 who
were facing trial for the charges under Sections 366 and
376(D) of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') giving them
benefit of doubt.
Brief Facts of the Case
9. The prosecution case is based on the fardebyan of the
victim, namely, 'X' recorded by Sub-Inspector of Police Raghu
Raj Ram of Shiv Sagar Police Station in the district of Rohtas on
09.03.2010
at 16:30 Hours at Shiv Sagar Police Station. In her
fardebyan, the victim (hereinafter interchangeably referred to as
the ‘informant’) has alleged that on 06.03.2010 at about 07:30-
08:30 PM in the evening, she had gone to defecate towards east of
her village where (1) Chintu Nat, (2) Ritesh Nat and (3) Shambhu
Rai, all under some conspiracy came there and tied her hands with
‘gamchha’ and tied her mouth with her ‘odhni’. They caught hold
of her and took her to east side to a rice mill which is presently run
by one Akhilesh Rai. Firstly, Ritesh committed wrong with her
then Shambhu and thereafter Pintu. During the alleged incident,
the victim alleges to have become unconscious many a times. The
victim was kept at the said place for three days and they
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.129 of 2021 dt.07-01-2025
4/13
committed rape upon her. On 08.03.2010 at about 12 O’clock,
when the victim regained her consciousness and no one was
present there, she escaped from the said place. The victim reached
her house and told her mother that the lock of the ‘dram’ was open
and she escaped from there. She also told about the incident to her
mother.
10. After completion of investigation, police submitted a
chargesheet against the Respondents-accused but discharged one
of the accused, namely, Shambhu Rai as no sufficient material
could be collected against him to file a chargesheet. The
chargesheet was filed under Sections 366A/376/34 IPC.
11. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the
offences vide order dated 26.06.2010 and upon finding that the
offences are triable by the Court of Sessions committed the records
to the Court of Sessions on 23.12.2010. Upon receipt of the
records in the learned Sessions Court, the accused persons-
respondents were explained the charges which they denied and
claimed to be tried. Accordingly, charges were framed against
them for the offences under Sections 366 and 376D IPC.
12. On behalf of the prosecution, altogether 3 witnesses
were examined. PW-1 is the father of the victim, PW-2 is her
mother and PW-3 is the victim herself. The prosecution has proved
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.129 of 2021 dt.07-01-2025
5/13
only the signature of the victim on her fardebyan and the signature
of PW-1 which have been marked as Exhibit ‘1’ and Exhibit ‘1/1’
respectively.
13. On behalf of the defence, no oral evidence has been
led but the defence has brought on record the following
documentary evidences:-
Exhibit ‘A’ The formal FIR of Shiv Sagar P.S. Case
No. 179 of 2018
Exhibit ‘A/1’ The written application of the said case
number
Exhibit ‘A/2’ The formal FIR of Shiv Sagar P.S. Case
No. 371 of 2017
Exhibit ‘A/3’ The written application of the said case
number
Exhibit ‘A/4’ The formal FIR of Shiv Sagar P.S. Case
No. 21 of 2002
Exhibit ‘A/5’ The fardebyan and the chargesheet
which have been filed in the said case.
Findings of the Learned Trial Court
14. At the outset, the learned trial court has found that
on perusal of the exhibits brought on record on behalf of the
defence, it is evident that both the parties are engaged in litigation
since the year 2002. The learned trial court has held that both the
parties have pending civil as well as criminal cases against each
other prior to the date of occurrence.
15. The learned trial court has dealt with the prosecution
evidences as well as the defence evidences on the record. In this
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.129 of 2021 dt.07-01-2025
6/13
case, the evidence of the Investigating Officer (I.O.) and the
Medical Officer has not been recorded. The learned trial court has
held that the story narrated by the victim (PW-3) seems to be
suspicious. The alleged occurrence took place on 06.03.2010 at
about 08:00 PM, the victim claims that she was taken to the
premises of a mini rice mill which is situated at a distance of 5
kilometers where she was subjected to rape but there was no
material on the record to prove that when she was forcibly taken
away to the premises of the rice mill, the victim had resisted
and/or any injury was caused to her in the said occurrence. The
learned trial court did not find any material on the record to prove
that the victim was subjected to rape.
16. This Court further finds that the learned trial court
having gone into the evidence of the victim (PW-3) found that she
was married in the year 2009 and her ‘gauna’ had taken place in
the year 2012. She had also taken benefit of the Government’s
scheme which is allowed to a married lady. The prosecution did
not lead any evidence to even prima-facie demonstrate that the
victim was aged about 15-16 years at the time of marriage. The
trial court having found that the victim had taken benefit of the
Government of Bihar’s scheme of Kanya Vivah Yojna in the year
2009, would have been eligible to receive such benefit only when
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.129 of 2021 dt.07-01-2025
7/13
she would have completed 18 years of age at the time of marriage,
therefore, in the year 2009, she would have been at least aged 18
years. The trial court has also drawn an adverse inference from the
conduct of the victim referring to her fardebyan in which she has
disclosed her age as 15-16 years whereas she had taken benefit of
the Kanya Vivah Yojna from the Government in the year 2009
showing herself eligible being aged 18 years. The inference shows
that the victim can change her statement at any stage for her own
benefit.
17. Learned trial court has further found that according
to PW-2, five accused persons had committed rape on the victim
whereas PW-1 has stated that three persons had committed rape on
PW-3. The victim returned home on her own after three days of the
occurrence and had narrated the entire story to her mother.
Information with regard to the occurrence was given at the Shiv
Sagar Police Station at about 12:00 Noon after return of the victim
but on perusal of the fardebyan of the victim, it would appear that
the same was recorded on 09.03.2010 at 04:30 PM. From this
evidence, the learned trial court has come to a conclusion that the
fardebyan has been recorded after much deliberations and
discussions among the prosecution witnesses and this seems to
have been influenced by the prior enmity between the parties. The
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.129 of 2021 dt.07-01-2025
8/13
victim did not remember even the date and the day of the
occurrence.
18. Having appreciated the entire evidences on the
record, the learned trial court found that the prosecution was not
able to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond all
reasonable doubts and in the kind of the evidence where the parties
are having prior enmity, it would not be appropriate to convict the
accused persons on the vague testimony of the victim.
Submissions on behalf of the Appellant
19. Mr. Dhanendra Chaubey, learned counsel for the
appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that
the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the evidences
of the prosecution witnesses, particularly that of the victim (PW-3)
who has supported her case. It is submitted that even though the
Doctor and the I.O. have not been examined in this case, it would
not cause any serious prejudice to the accused persons and the
prosecution case would not fail because of the non-examination of
the Doctor and the I.O.
Submissions on behalf of the State
20. On the other hand, Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has defended the
impugned judgment. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.129 of 2021 dt.07-01-2025
9/13
submit that in this case, the trial court has thoroughly examined the
evidences available on the record. There is no denial of the fact
that the parties were at loggerheads since the year 2002 and they
were having civil as well as criminal litigation, further, in this
case, the conduct of the prosecution in lodging the FIR after three
days is required to be examined keeping in view that the evidence
of the prosecution witnesses suffer from material contradictions,
inconsistencies and the evidence of the victim cannot be put in the
category of a sterling witness.
21. It is submitted that while delay in lodging of the FIR
alone may not be sufficient to throw away the prosecution case but
in this case, it is not mere a delay of 3 days but even the quality of
the evidences available on the record would create doubt over the
authenticity of the prosecution case. In such circumstance, the
learned trial court has not committed any error in acquitting the
accused persons.
Consideration
22. We have heard Mr. Dhanendra Chaubey, learned
counsel for the appellant and Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the trial
court’s records. The materials appearing from the record clearly
show that the occurrence in which the victim (PW-3) was allegedly
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.129 of 2021 dt.07-01-2025
10/13
forcibly taken away to a place on 06.03.2010 in between 07:30-
08:30 PM while she had gone alone to the eastern side of her
village to defecate, even as she did not return home, neither PW-1
nor PW-2 who are the uncle and the mother respectively of the
victim lodged any ‘sanha’ with the police. The victim returned
home on her own after three days and thereafter the present FIR
has been lodged. The learned trial court has rightly recorded that
the information with regard to the occurrence was received in the
Shiv Sagar Police Station at 12 Noon but the fardebyan of the
victim was recorded after four and half hours i.e. at 04:30 PM. The
learned trial court has, therefore, rightly noticed that the
prosecution parties being inimical to the defence were involved in
deliberations and discussions prior to lodging of the first
information report.
23. We have also found from the formal FIR that the FIR
was sent to the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate only on
11.03.2010 i.e. after two days of the registration of the FIR.
24. In this case, though the victim claimed in her
fardebyan that she was 15-16 years old but the materials on the
record clearly demonstrate that she was married in the year 2009
and having declared herself eligible to get the benefit of the State
Government’s scheme of Kanya Vivah Yojna, she had received the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.129 of 2021 dt.07-01-2025
11/13
benefit. Thus, we find no error in the finding of the learned trial
court that the victim has changed her statement with regard to her
age while lodging the fardebyan and this would definitely raise a
doubt over the veracity of her statement.
25. The learned trial court has recorded that the victim
was allegedly taken to a distance of 5 kilometers in a rice mill
where she was subjected to rape but the victim has admitted her
photograph with one of the accused, namely, Chintu who was also
studying in the same school in intermediate class. The learned trial
court has also noticed material discrepancies which were in the
nature of contradiction in the statement of the victim and we are of
the view that the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the
evidences on the record.
26. The I.O. and the Doctor of the case have not been
examined and this, in our considered opinion, would cause serious
prejudice to the defence inasmuch as neither the place of
occurrence has been proved in this case nor the matters connected
to the place of occurrence could be demonstrated before the
learned trial court. There is no independent witness of the
occurrence, delay in lodging of the FIR, in the circumstances,
would prove fatal to the prosecution case.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.129 of 2021 dt.07-01-2025
12/13
27. We are also reminded of the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H.D. Sundara and Others
Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2023) 9 SCC 581 wherein
the principles governing an appeal against acquittal have been
enumerated in paragraph ‘8’. We quote paragraph ‘8’ of the
judgment in the case of H.D. Sundara (supra) as under:-
“8. In this appeal, we are called upon to
consider the legality and validity of the
impugned judgment1 rendered by the High
Court while deciding an appeal against
acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC“).
The principles which govern the exercise of
appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an
appeal against acquittal under Section
378CrPC can be summarised as follows:
“8.1. The acquittal of the accused further
strengthens the presumption of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an
appeal against acquittal, is entitled to
reappreciate the oral and documentary
evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an
appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating
the evidence, is required to consider whether
the view taken by the trial court is a possible
view which could have been taken on the
basis of the evidence on record;
1 State of Karnataka v. H.K. Mariyappa, 2010 SCC OnLine Kar 5591
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.129 of 2021 dt.07-01-2025
13/138.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the
appellate court cannot overturn the order of
acquittal on the ground that another view
was also possible; and
8.5. The appellate court can interfere with
the order of acquittal only if it comes to a
finding that the only conclusion which can
be recorded on the basis of the evidence on
record was that the guilt of the accused was
proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no
other conclusion was possible.”
28. Having examined and re-appreciated the entire
materials on the record, keeping in view what have been discussed
hereinabove and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of H.D. Sundara (supra), we find no reason to interfere
with the impugned judgment.
29. This appeal has no merit. It is dismissed accordingly.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
( S. B. Pd. Singh, J)
lekhi/-
AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 11.01.2025 Transmission Date 11.01.2025