Patna High Court
Raj Kumar @ Seni Mahto vs The State Of Bihar on 6 August, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.18 of 2014
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2012 Thana- SHEIKHOPUR SARAI District-
Sheikhpura
======================================================
Raj Kumar @ Seni Mahto Son Of Sh. Saheb Mahto Residnet Of Village -
Panchi,P.S-Sheikhopur Sarai, District - Sheikhpura
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Dinkar Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Anita Kumari Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date: 06-08-2025
Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellant assisted by Mr. Dinkar Kumar and Mr. Anita Kumari
Singh, learned APP for the State.
2. This appeal has been filed under Section
374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
(hereinafter refereed as 'Cr.P.C') against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 21.12.2013 respectively
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhpura in
Sessions Trial No. 468 of 2012 arising out of Shekhopursarai
P.S. Case 02 of 2012 / G.R No. 18 of 2012 whereby and where
under the appellant has been convicted for the offences
punishable under Sections 354, 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal
Code (hereinafter refereed as 'IPC') and sentencing him to
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.18 of 2014 dt.06-08-2025
2/19
undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the offence
punishable under Section 354 of the IPC, one month
imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 341 of
the IPC and further six months for the offence punishable under
Section 323 of the IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in
default of non-payment of fine he shall undergo simple
imprisonment for one month. All the sentences shall run
currently.
3. The case of prosecution in brief is that on
05.02.2012
at 7:45 pm when the informant Priti Kumari came
out from her defecate room situated in her land then the accused
caught her hand and after knocking her down opened his lungi
and forcibly remover her salwar and tried to assault her sexually.
She raised alarm then her grand father Chamari Ram and mother
came there and he assaulted to her mother and grand father
causing fracture injury on his hand and also used filthy
language. Due to late hours she could not go to police station
and on next day she lodged the present case.
4. On the basis of the above, case was registered
and after completing the investigation, the investigating officer
submitted charge sheet under aforesaid Sections. After taking
cognizance the learned CJM committed the case to the Sessions
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.18 of 2014 dt.06-08-2025
3/19
Court.
5. On behalf of the prosecution, altogether 8
witness were examined to substantiate the charges leveled
against the accused/appellant Raj Kumar @ Seni Mahto. Out of
them, PW-1 Chamari Ram (injured), PW-2 Babita Devi
(injured), PW-3 Priti Kumari (informant), PW-4 Dr. Mohd.
Vasim, PW-5 Prabhu Sao, PW-6 Basant Mahto (declared
hostile), PW-7 Janardan Mandal (IO) and PW-8 Ganesh Singh
(IO).
6. PW-1 in his examination-in-chief stated that
Priti Kumari is her granddaughter and this incident happened
nine months ago at 7:30 in the evening. When he was at home,
his granddaughter went to defecate. Rajkumar caught his
granddaughter and tried to rape her. When his granddaughter
screamed, he reached there and started to scream, the accused
broke his hand by hitting him with a stick. When he stopped the
accused with his hand, it broke in defence. The injury is visible
in the hand which is hanging below the elbow and is bent from
its natural position. The accused hit and run away.
6.i. In his cross-examination, he stated that in the
month of Magh, in the village, people have their dinner and go
to sleep by 9-10 pm. He was at home and her daughter-in-law
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.18 of 2014 dt.06-08-2025
4/19
was inside the house. The toilet is also built at his own land at a
distance of 4 feet. When he reached there after hearing the
commotion. Stick was in the hand of Rajkumar and hit him the
moment he came there. He was saved by his daughter-in-law.
His granddaughter also saved her. The accused hit him with a
stick and on screaming, accused hit him twice again. He also
went to the police station and called the police. The inspector
came the same day. At 12:00, after the police verification was
over, he was treated at the village hospital and was admitted
there overnight. Around 2-3 o’clock in the night, a plaster was
put on his hand and then he was sent home. It is not that no such
incident happened or he used to buy goods from his shop and he
was filing a case against him for not paying the money. He had
not filed any case against the accused earlier.
7. PW-2 in her examination-in-chief stated that
the occurrence took place 10 months ago at 07-7:30 PM, his
daughter Priti Kumari had gone to washroom. At 7 o’clock,
Rajkumar (Sunny Mahto) knocked down her daughter and tried
to rape her. When the girl shouted, her grandfather ran and then
she went and saw that her girl was being molested. When her
grandfather shouted, the accused hit him with a stick and broke
grandfather’s hand and hit her also and ran away. He recognizes
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.18 of 2014 dt.06-08-2025
5/19
the boy who has eloped. Her daughter filed a case at the police
station. The copy of the case has the signature of her daughter
and hers on it and she recognizes it as well.
7.i. In the cross-examination, she stated that she
was at home and she was not well that day. Everyone was
having their dinner. First of all, her father-in-law went after
hearing the hulla, and then she went after him. When she went
there, the accused hit her. The accused also hit the aged person.
The aged person fell down and broke his arm. No one came to
save the old man. When she reached there, the accused also hit
her and ran away. He hit my daughter too and she also tried to
save herself. When she went there, he beat her too and ran away.
She was treated in the hospital where she was admitted for 3
days. Her mouth and her chin got injured.
7.ii. She further stated that her daughter was
fallen there and the accused tried to rape her daughter. Her
daughter was also treated in the hospital and the daughter too
told the same. The accused immediately run away after beating
them. She cannot tell the time. Some outsider also came just
after the incident. The shop of the father of the accused is next
to her house. She does not buy anything from that shop. It is not
the fact that such an alleged occurrence did not happen and she
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.18 of 2014 dt.06-08-2025
6/19
filed a false case on demand of money for the purchased item
from the shop of appellant/accused.
8. PW-3 in her examination-in-chief stated that
the occurrence took place on 5th January 2012 at 7.30 PM. She
was going to the toilet which is next to her house. When she
came out of the toilet, Rajkumar (Sunny Mahto) caught her and
pushed her down. He started undressing his lungi and opened
her salwar too and tried to do dirty act. She shouted and her
Dada Ji (Chamari Ram) arrived. The accused broke Dada Ji’s
hand with a stick. He hit her too and when her mother came, he
hit her mother also. He entered her house after that and
threatened all of us that if anyone says anything about the
occurrence, he will kill all of them. In the morning, she went to
the police station and filled the case against the accused. She
gave the written statement of the occurrence.
8.i. In her cross-examination, she stated that
accused’s shop is near her house. It is just a few steps away, and
the toilet is built outside her house, in front of which a road
passes. Sunny did not use to visit her house earlier. She too did
not use to live there. She used to study at her grandmother’s
place. This is the first case against the accused, there was no
case against him before it. When the accused came close to her
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.18 of 2014 dt.06-08-2025
7/19
and caught her, she shouted, and after two-three minutes her
Dada Ji came and then the accused left her and started hitting
her grandfather. She tried to save him but the accused hit her
too. Her mother came just after her grandfather.
8.ii. She further stated that the quarrel went on
for 15 minutes and when the accused started to open her salwar,
she resisted. The salwar got torn which she has not submitted to
the police officer. When she fell down on the ground she too got
injured. She was treated in the hospital. Her grandfather too was
treated in the hospital. She did not have a watch, so she doesn’t
know that for how long she was lying on the ground. The
accused came empty handed. Some outsider came to the place
of occurrence but no one rescued. It is not the case that she used
to get goods from the accused’s shop but she used to buy goods
from the market. It is not that such an incident did not happen
and testimony was taken in the wrong case.
9. PW-4 in his examination-in-chief stated that
on 06.01.2012, he was posted as MO in Sekhopur Sarai PHC.
On the same day he examined the wound of Chamari Ram (80
years) and found: –
1.Pain and tenderness as the left forearm.
2. Pain and tenderness all over the body.
Advised x-ray for injury no 1 and injury no
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.18 of 2014 dt.06-08-2025
8/19
2 caused by HBS and simple in nature.
He further stated that this injury report is written and signed by
him. In his cross-examination, he stated that he just wrote what
he saw and observed. He had treated him from the beginning.
When the patient came, he was in pain from the injury. The time
has not been mentioned on the report. It does not mean that the
report was given wrongly.
10. PW-5 in his examination-in-chief stated that
he is aware of the incident and the incident occurred 13 months
back. He heard that there was a fight between Chamri and Kelu.
Chamari had purchased some goods from Kelu’s shop and a
dispute arose over asking to pay the money back. In his cross-
examination, he stated that Kelu is also known as Saheb Mahto,
the accused Sunny is his son. He voluntarily gave the testimony.
11. PW-7 in his examination-in-chief stated that
on 06.01.2012, he was posted as a Police Inspector in
Shekhopur Sarai PS. On the basis of fardbeyan, he registered the
case and took the charge of the case and examined the
witnesses. He logged the statement of Chamari Ram and Babita
Devi and sent them to the hospital for the purpose of there
treatment. He then went to the place of occurrence and saw that
to the west of informant’s house, which was facing north, there
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.18 of 2014 dt.06-08-2025
9/19
is a thatched hut. There is a toilet in the north-west corner and
the incident which is mentioned is of on the door of the toilet.
To the south of the house is the lane leading towards the village
and to the east of Buddhan Mahto is the house of the Informant.
To the west is the private land of the informant. On 09.01.2012,
Basant Mahto, Prabhudh Sao and Krishna Nandan was
examined and observation note was formed. Then he was
transferred so the charge was given to the SHO. Ganesh Singh
was given the duty to examine the case. Chamari Ram was
injured, so the F.I.R. is in the handwriting of Kapildev.
11.i. In his cross-examination, he stated that on
06.01.2012, from the information obtained from the
investigation, he visited the place of occurrence. The informant
did not submitted the cloths nor did he took it. Chowkidar told
that the statement of a total of three witnesses were recorded in
the police station and the rest were recorded at the place of
occurrence. The statements of the neighbors were also recorded.
They are the native of the same palace. He further stated that
there was not any band aid on the injury. He doesn’t remember
when he met the witnesses after taking the statement from the
Thana. It is not true that the place of incident was not inspected
and they were not sent for treatment and the statement was
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.18 of 2014 dt.06-08-2025
10/19
taken while sitting at the Thana. And it is not true that the
investigation is wrongful.
12. PW-8 stated that he joined the Shekhopur
Sarai PO on 16.03.12 and on 19.03.12, this case was handed
over to him. He tried to get the injury report, but the doctor told
him to send him the report later. Further on the order of the
senior officer, he submitted the charge-sheet. He stated that the
hand is fractured and plastered. The doctor told him that he will
send the X-ray report after he get the report. On 31.03.2012,
Rajkumar was charged under Sections 447, 341, 354, 376 read
with 511, 325 and 506 of the IPC. In his cross examination, he
stated that he was with his senior officer and he has submitted
the charge-sheet as per their order. There is no such thing that he
has submitted the charge-sheet on his own.
13. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the
appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C where
they claimed that the prosecution evidence is false and they are
innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant submits
that the impugned judgement of conviction and order of
sentence are not sustainable in the eye of law or on facts.
Learned trial Court has not applied its judicial mind and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.18 of 2014 dt.06-08-2025
11/19
erroneously passed the judgement of conviction and order of
sentence and from perusal of the evidences adduced on behalf of
the prosecution it is crystal clear that the prosecution’s case is
false and fabricated.
14.i. He further submits that Dr. Md. Vasim,
(PW-4), who examined the injured person PW 1 and found two
injuries in which Injury No. I advised for X-Ray but X-ray not
brought on record and the injury no. 2 is simple and caused by
hard and blunt substance and on cross examination, the Doctor
fairly stated that the injured has not turned up later and upon
injury report he did not mentioned the time. The depositions of
the PW-1 Grand Father of the Informant and his daughter-in-law
PW-2, who are family members and interested persons and the
same has not been corroborated by any other plausible evidence,
specially with the depositions of the PW-3. Further, there is vital
contradiction in depositions of the PW-3 the informant/victim
with respect to sustaining allegation under Section 354 of the
IPC read with side by side depositions of PW 1 and PW 2 & PW
No. 7,
14.ii. He further submitted that so far as Section
376 read with Section 511 of the IPC has leveled in this case,
with an ulterior view to make the offence graver against the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.18 of 2014 dt.06-08-2025
12/19
appellant, due to admitted neighbor’s feud & grudge with
respect to father of the Appellant (Saheb Mahto’s general shop
dues). Learned counsel further submitted that as this appeal is of
the year 2014 and occurrence is of the year 2012, where, the
appellant has suffered and undergone persistent agony on the
account of the same and are struggling for the defence since last
12-13 years. So, the appellant should have been acquitted from
the conviction as sentenced against him.
15. However, learned APP for the State defends
the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence
submitting that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned
judgment and order of sentence, because prosecution has proved
its case against the appellant. In view of the aforesaid statements
and the evidence on record, learned trial Court has rightly
convicted the appellant and the present appeal should not be
entertained.
16. At this stage, I would like to appreciate the
relevant extract of entire evidence led by the prosecution before
the Trial Court. I have thoroughly perused the materials on
record and as well as given thoughtful consideration to the
submissions advanced by both the parties.
17. On deeply studied and scrutinized all
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.18 of 2014 dt.06-08-2025
13/19
evidences, it is evident to note that even though PW-1 and PW-2
are family members and interested witnesses, but they are
natural witnesses and injured witnesses. They came instantly at
the place of occurrence after hearing the scream of victim,
which is so spontaneous and contemporaneous to the instant fact
that there is no chance of fabrication. So their testimony is
relevant and reliable in the present fact and circumstances as per
section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act which read as follow:-
6. Relevancy of facts forming part of same
transaction.
“Facts which, though not in issue, are so
connected with a fact in issue as to form
part of the same transaction, are relevant
whether they occurred at the same time and
place or at different times and places.”
18. It is also a well settled law that testimony of
witnesses otherwise inspiring confidence of court cannot be
discarded on the ground that they are the family members of the
victim. Further there appears no contradiction, inconsistency or
exaggeration in the testimony of theses injured witnesses. They
all corroborated with each other in most natural way from the
testimony of victim/informant (PW-3) and fully supported the
prosecution case. Moreover IO has also been examined who has
inspected the place of occurrence and confirmed the same. The
distinction between an attempt to commit rape and to commit
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.18 of 2014 dt.06-08-2025
14/19
sexual harassment is something very meager. There should be
some action on the part of the accused which would show that
he is just going to have sexual connection with the informant.
The prosecution is required to prove that the act has gone
beyond the stage of preparation.
19. In order to fall under the ambit of ‘attempt to
rape’ the accused and the victim should have at least been
undressed to the extent that had there been no impediment, the
accused/appellant would have committed the offence of rape.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Madanlal v. State of
J&K,(1997) 7 SCC 677 held that there is a difference between
preparation to commit rape and attempt to commit rape. He
submitted that mere preparation to commit the offence is not
punishable under the Penal Code. The Apex Court stated the
following principal in Madanlal (supra):
“12. The difference between preparation
and an attempt to commit an offence
consists chiefly in the greater degree of
determination and what is necessary to
prove for an offence of an attempt commit
rape has been committed is that the accused
has gone beyond the stage preparation. If
an accused strips a girl naked and then
making her lie flat on the ground undresses
himself and then forcibly rubs his erected
penis on the private parts of the girl but
fails to penetrate the same into the vagina
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.18 of 2014 dt.06-08-2025
15/19and on such rubbing ejaculates himself then
it is difficult for us to hold that it was a case
of merely assault under Section 354 IPC
and not an attempt to commit rape under
Section 376 read with Section 511 of the
IPC.”
20. At this stage, it becomes imperative to
examine the legal provisions incorporated in the Penal Code
relating to outraging the modesty of a woman/girl under Section
354 of the IPC. Section 354 of the IPC reads as under:
“354. Assault or criminal force to woman
with intent to outrage her modesty.–
Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to
any woman, intending to outrage or
knowing it to be likely that he will thereby
outrage her modesty, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to two years, or
with fine, or with both.”
21. This court in the case of Md. Zafre Imam @
Mangla V. State of Bihar in Cr. App. No. 153 of 2008;
“On evaluation of the entire evidence and
documents on record, it has been proved
beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt that
on the night of 21.03.2002 at around 8 PM,
victim aged about 14 years, had gone out of
the house to defecate. At that time the
accused/appellant Md. Zafre Imam @
Mangala son of Kayum Shah of his village
was coming in an inebriated state after
drinking toddy and on seeing victim alone,
he caught her and tried to rape her
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.18 of 2014 dt.06-08-2025
16/19forcefully. When victim started shouting, the
informant’s younger son Hashim reached
there and then the appellant left her and
ran away. So considering above mentioned
judgments and the fact that the
accused/appellant forcefully took the victim
and threw her on the weed and thereafter
opened the strings of her salwar has been
stated by the victim and the same is
corroborated by the statements of the other
prosecution witnesses and even admitted by
the appellant, the appellant is clearly guilty
of the offence punishable under Section 354
of the IPC”
22. Here in this case the evidence is that the
accused caught the victim cum informant when she came out
from washroom situated near the rasta on her land and knocked
her down and misbehaved indecently after removing lungi and
salwar. The informant has not stated that the accused after
knocking her down made her naked. She has stated that when
the accused started misbehaving her she raised alarm then her
grandfather came and saved. Under the above fact it is apparent
from the evidence that he did not expose nor attempted to
expose his private parts. Thus it is apparent that the accused has
not gone beyond the stage of preparation. There appears no
cogent reason that why the minor informant would falsely
implicate the accused for the occurrence said to be occurred at
7.45 PM near the house of the informant. Therefore in my
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.18 of 2014 dt.06-08-2025
17/19
considered opinion the charge of attempt to commit rape is not
made out and the facts proved brings the case within the ambit
of Section 354 of the IPC beyond doubt and the accused can
well be held guilty under minor offence.
23. On a close scrutiny and critical analysis of
the evidence of the witnesses this Court find that the prosecution
has been able to prove its case beyond shadow of all reasonable
doubt, that the accused used criminal force against the informant
with intention to outrage her modesty which can culled out from
the evidences adduced by the prosecution also. So, the act
comes under the ambit of Section 354 of the IPC and thus the
prosecution has also able to prove the fact that when she was
coming back after defecate the accused caught her and after
knocking her down misbehaved indecently with her and on
hulla when PW-1 and PW-2 came to save her grand-daughter
and daughter respectively the accused assaulted them and fled
away.
24. So, considering all the materials available on
record and aforesaid judgements, this court is of the view that
the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated
21.12.2013 respectively passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Sheikhpura in Sessions Trial No. 468 of 2012
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.18 of 2014 dt.06-08-2025
18/19
arising out of Shekhopursarai P.S. Case 02 of 2012 / G.R No. 18
of 2012, the charges levelled against them is proved beyond
shadow of all reasonable doubt, so the conviction against them
is upheld and affirmed under Sections 354, 341 and 323 of the
IPC.
25. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State
of U.P. vs Tribhuwan, (2018) 1 SCC 90 has laid down that, time
spent in custody by a convicted person, both as an under-trial
and as a convicted person, may be considered as jail sentence
awarded to him and he may get the advantage of set-off under
Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
26. Further, it is evident that the appellant was 19
years old at the time of impugned judgement and has served 4
months judicial custody and undergone persistent agony on
account of the same. There are also no adverse report against the
appellant about his conduct otherwise the same would have
been brought to our notice by learned counsel for the State. As
this appeal is of the year 2014 and occurrence is of the year
2012, where, the appellant has suffered and undergone persistent
agony on the account of the same and is struggling for the
defence since last 11-12 years, the sentence of the appellant is
reduced to period undergone and the appellant stands discharged
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.18 of 2014 dt.06-08-2025
19/19
of the liabilities of his bail bonds, if any.
27. Accordingly, the Appeal is partly allowed.
28. Office is directed to send back the trial court
records and proceedings along with a copy of this judgment to
the trial court, forthwith, for necessary compliance, if any.
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
sunnykr/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 11.07.2025 Uploading Date 06.08.2025 Transmission Date 06.08.2025