Patna High Court
Ranjit Sharma vs The State Of Bihar on 18 January, 2025
Author: Mohit Kumar Shah
Bench: Mohit Kumar Shah, Shailendra Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 505 of 2015
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-156 Year-2012 Thana- KHAGARIA District- Khagaria
======================================================
Ranjit Sharma Son of Ramchandra Sharma, Resident of Village -
Ranisakarpura, P.S. - Khagaria (Gangour), District - Khagaria.
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance:
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Alias Sanidh, Adv.
Mr. Ashwani Raj Narayan, Adv.
Mr. Mukund Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)
Date : 18-01-2025
The present appeal under Section 374 (2) read with
Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as "the Cr.P.C.") has been preferred
against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated
12.05.2015
and 18.05.2015 respectively, passed in Sessions
Trial No. 216 of 2012 (arising out of Khagaria (Gangour) P.S.
Case No. 156 of 2012) by the learned 1st Additional Sessions
Judge, Khagaria (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial
Judge”). By the said judgment, the learned Trial Judge has
convicted the sole appellant for commission of offence under
Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.505 of 2015 dt.18-01-2025
2/20
undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
2. Short facts of the case are that on 31.03.2012 at 22:00
hours, fardbeyan of one Sumitra Devi, wife of Arjun Goswami
(P.W. 2), was recorded by the Station House Officer (SHO),
Gangour O.P. (Camp Sadar Hospital, Khagaria), at Sadar
Hospital, Khagaria. In the fardbeyan, Smt. Sumitra Devi
(hereinafter referred to as “the informant”) has stated that her
grand-daughter (hereinafter referred to as “the prosecutrix”) was
staying with her since past 3-4 years in her house. On
31.03.2012 at about 6:00 pm in the evening, when the informant
and the prosecutrix were at home and the prosecutrix was
playing, the informant had gone to the house of her neighbour,
namely, Kaushaliya Devi, to borrow some money, while asking
the prosecutrix to remain inside the house, however, when she
returned back to her house, at about 7:00 pm then she saw that
her grand-daughter was wriggling in pain, was crying and
saying that the neighbour namely, Ranjit Sharma i.e. the
appellant herein, had opened her pajama (trouser) and has
committed wrong with her, whereafter the informant had lighted
a torch and saw that the clothes of the prosecutrix below her
waist were wet with blood and blood had fallen on the ground
apart from blood oozing out from her private parts which had
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.505 of 2015 dt.18-01-2025
3/20
also fallen on her foot. The informant had raised an alarm,
whereafter neighbours had arrived and then the prosecutrix was
taken to the Sadar Hospital, Khagaria, where her treatment is
going on. On receiving information, the Officer-in-Charge,
Gangour Police station had arrived at the hospital and recorded
the fardbeyan of the informant. After the fardbeyan was read
over to the informant, she had put her right thumb impression
over the same.
3. After recording of the fardbeyan, a formal FIR bearing
Khagaria (Gangour) P.S. Case No. 156 of 2012 was registered
for offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code on
01.04.2012 at about 10:30 am against one Ranjit Sharma
(Appellant). After investigation and finding the case to be true
qua the appellant, the police had submitted charge-sheet on
31.05.2012 against the appellant. Thereafter, on 04.06.2012, the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria, had taken
cognizance of offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal
Code and subsequently on 23.06.2012, the case was committed
to the Court of Sessions and was numbered as Sessions Trial
No. 216 of 2012. On 27.09.2012, charge under Section 376 of
the Indian Penal Code was framed against the appellant. During
the course of trial, while P.W.1 Saudagar Paswan, P.W.3 Naresh
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.505 of 2015 dt.18-01-2025
4/20
Goswami, P.W.5 Ramdeo Rajak, P.W.6 Raj Kumar Mahto and
P.W.7 Gauri Shankar Goswami had turned hostile, the informant
i.e. P.W. 2 Sumitra Devi and the prosecutrix i.e. P.W. 8 were
examined and cross-examined. P.W. 4 Dr. Manju Kumari, who
had examined the prosecutrix and prepared the medical report /
supplementary medical report, has also been examined and
cross-examined.
4. Sri Neeraj Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant,
after referring to the entire evidence and the materials on record,
has argued that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond
all reasonable doubt, hence, the learned Trial Judge has
incorrectly passed the judgment of conviction under challenge.
It has been argued that all the independent witnesses, i.e. P.W.1,
P.W. 3 and P.W. 5 to P.W.7, have turned hostile. As far as P.W. 2
i.e. the informant and grandmother of the prosecutrix is
concerned, there are several contradictions, in between her
fardbeyan and her testimony. While P.W.2 has stated in the
fardbeyan that when she returned back to home on 31.3.2012 in
the evening she found her grand-daughter crying with pain and
her clothes were soaked with blood whereupon the prosecutrix
had narrated the aforesaid occurrence and then the prosecutrix
was taken to Khagaria Hospital where the police, upon receiving
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.505 of 2015 dt.18-01-2025
5/20
information, had arrived and recorded her fardbeyan, however,
in her evidence, she has stated that she had gone to the Hospital
via Gangour Police Station from where the SHO of the said
Police Station had accompanied them to the hospital and though
the prosecutrix was unconscious at home however, she had
regained consciousness in the hospital at around 3:00 am in the
morning. Similarly, the prosecutrix i.e. P.W. 8 has stated in her
evidence that she was taken to the hospital via Gangour Police
Station from where the police had accompanied them to the
hospital. Thus, it is submitted that the evidence of P.W.2 and
P.W. 8 does not inspire confidence, rather appears to be
untruthful. The learned counsel for the appellant has further
submitted that the vaginal swab report of JLMNCH, Bhagalpur,
shows that no spermatozoa has been found as also the medical
report does not corroborate the factum of rape and in fact
suggests that injury has been caused due to pointed hard
substance. It is next submitted that FIR has not been exhibited
and the Investigating Officer has not been examined, which has
caused grave prejudice to the petitioner, inasmuch as the same
would have revealed the actual facts and circumstances of the
case and as to how the fardbeyan came to be recorded at 10:30
pm on 31.03.2012. Lastly, the learned counsel for the appellant
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.505 of 2015 dt.18-01-2025
6/20
has referred to Section 53 of the Cr.P.C. to submit that the same
has been violated, hence, the appellant has been prejudiced.
5. The learned APP for the State, Sri Dilip Kumar Sinha,
opposing the appeal, has argued that in a case like the present
one, the sole testimony of the prosecutrix is enough to uphold
the conviction of the appellant. By way of referring to the
evidence of the prosecutrix (P.W.8), he has argued that the
prosecutrix has consistently disclosed the factum of rape, having
been committed with her by the appellant and thereafter, she
being taken to the hospital via Gangour Police Station from
where the police had accompanied them, which also stands
corroborated from the medical report as also the FSL report. It is
also submitted that non-examination of the informant and the
FIR having not been exhibited has not prejudiced the appellant
in the facts and circumstances of the present case, especially in
view of the fact that neither the place of occurrence is disputed
nor the factum of rape committed upon the prosecutrix is in
dispute, which stands substantiated by the evidence of PW 2 &
PW8 as also the medical reports on record. It is submitted that
the appellant has committed a heinous crime with a seven years
old child, hence no sympathy should be shown by this Court,
thus, the appeal is fit to be dismissed being devoid of any
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.505 of 2015 dt.18-01-2025
7/20
merit.
6. Besides hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we
have minutely perused both the evidence i.e. oral and
documentary. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to
cursorily discuss the evidence.
7. The informant Sumitra Devi (P.W.2), who is the
grandmother of the prosecutrix, has stated in her evidence that
about 11 months back, on a day which was Saturday, at about
6:00 pm in the evening, she and her grand-daughter aged about
7 years were in their house, whereafter she had gone to her
neighbour’s house to borrow a sum of Rs. 100/-, leaving behind
her grand-daughter at the house, where she started talking with
her neighbour and then she returned back to her house at about
7:00 pm in the evening and saw that her grand-daughter was
crying with pain and blood was oozing out from her private
parts as also her clothes were soaked with blood and blood had
fallen on the ground. On being asked, the prosecutrix told her
that the appellant had committed rape with her, after opening
her pajama. P.W. 2 has further stated that when she was coming
back from her neighbour’s house, she had seen the appellant
fleeing away after jumping the wall. Thereafter, the prosecutrix
was taken to the hospital at Khagaria for treatment where the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.505 of 2015 dt.18-01-2025
8/20
Police Officer had come and recorded her fardbeyan, which was
read over to her, whereafter she had put her mark over the same
after finding the same to be correct and there her nephew was
also present. P.W. 2 had also recognized the appellant. In her
cross-examination, P.W. 2 has stated that her husband’s name is
Arjun, who used to run iron business at Naugachhia and her
brother-in-law’s name is Sahdev and she used to stay at
Naugachhia along with her husband. P.W. 2 has denied the fact
that she was in love with her brother-in-law and that she had
come to Chhoti Rani Sakarpura with him. P.W.2 has stated that
she had filed a case against Arjun, which is going on at
Bhagalpur. P.W. 2 has further stated that she was not having any
child and though she had given birth to one child but he died
within six months, whereafter no child was born. P.W.2 has
further stated that she had bought 5 dhur land vide a sale deed at
Chhoti Rani Sakarpura from one Jagdambi Mahto for Rs. 7,000-
8,000/- and a total sum of Rs. 10,000/- was spent. P.W.2 has
denied borrowing a sum of Rs. 30,000/- from the father of the
appellant, namely, Ramchandra for purchasing 5 dhur land as
has also denied any dispute having ever taken place with him on
account of P.W. 2 having not returned back the money to
Ramchandra. In cross-examination, P.W. 2 has stated that when
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.505 of 2015 dt.18-01-2025
9/20
she returned home on the fateful evening, the prosecutrix was
unconscious and she regained consciousness at the hospital at
about 3 am in the morning, after injection was inoculated and
medicine was administered. P.W. 2 has further stated in her
cross-examination that she had gone to the hospital with her
grand-daughter in Bolero vehicle via Gangour Police Station
and the Police Officer had also accompanied them to the
hospital. P.W. 2 has stated that they had reached Gangour Police
Station at about 9:00 pm in the night and Chandrachur Mahto,
Pappu Yadav and Giwachh Goswami had accompanied them in
the Bolero vehicle. P.W. 2 has also stated in her cross-
examination that she owns a goat and wood pieces are kept in
the house for the purposes of being used as firewood. P.W.2 has
denied that the prosecutrix had gone to graze the goat and in the
process, had fallen on the firewood, leading to her sustaining
injuries.
8. P.W.8, i.e. the prosecutrix has stated in her Examination-
in-chief that the occurrence is two years old when at about 6-7
pm in the evening while she was alone in the house, her
grandmother had gone to the house of Kumhar Nana for
borrowing money while telling her that she had put the mobile
on charge and if her mobile rings she should pick up the phone
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.505 of 2015 dt.18-01-2025
10/20
and should keep sitting on the chair. Thereafter, the appellant
had arrived there, opened her Pajama and had inserted his thick
object in her hole through which urination is done, leading to
blood oozing out from there and pain had also started. She has
also stated that the appellant had inserted his penis in her
urination hole, whereupon she had raised an alarm but he had
pressed her mouth and then he had fled away. Thereafter, the
grandmother of the prosecutrix had arrived there and taken her
to Sadar Hospital, Khagaria, where her treatment was done and
there the police had arrived and recorded her statement. P.W. 8
had also recognized the appellant. In her cross-examination, the
prosecutrix has stated that the appellant had entered the house
after five minutes of her grand-mother leaving the house and he
had committed wrong with her while sitting on the chair as also
on the ground and at that time she was wearing pant and
pajama and above the waist she was wearing suit. She has also
stated that the appellant had before committing wrong with her
opened her pajama and pant and removed the same from her
body. P.W. 8 has further stated in her cross-examination that
when her grand-mother arrived then she covered herself with a
bedsheet and sat on the bed, whereafter her grand-mother took
her to Khagaria hospital via Gangour and the police had also
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.505 of 2015 dt.18-01-2025
11/20
accompanied her to Khagaria. P.W. 8 has denied the suggestion
to the effect that she had fallen on a khuta (peg) used for tying
the goat and the same had led to the injuries sustained by her
and the appellant had not committed any wrong with her.
9. We have also gone through the seizure list dated
01.04.2012, wherein the details of the article seized from the
house of the prosecutrix have been mentioned and the same
includes one black color undergarment (panty/half pant) on
which bloodstains and sperm type stains have been found, one
yellow and white color two piece suit which was also
bloodstained and one orange color pajama on which bloodstains
were present. We have also seen the report of the Forensic
Science Laboratory, Government of Bihar, Patna, dt. 24.8.2012,
relevant portion whereof is reproduced herein below:-
“DESCRIPTION OF ARTICLE (S) CONTAINED IN
PARCELS (S)
1. The packet marked ‘A’ contained one old torn and dirty
black colour janghia said to be pant which bore reddish
brown stains at places. It also bore greyish white stains
which were stiff to feel and which produce characteristic
bluish white fluorescence in ultra violet light.
2. The packet marked ‘B’ contained one yellow white
colour upper part of two piece which bore reddish brown
stains at places. It also bore greyish white stains which
were neither stiff to feel nor did they produce any
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.505 of 2015 dt.18-01-2025
12/20characteristic bluish white fluorescence ultra violet light.
3. The packet marked ‘C’ contained one old, torn and dirty
orange colour paijama which bore reddish brown stains
over large areas. It also bore greyish white stains which
were neither stiff to feel nor did they produce any
characteristic bluish white fluorescence in ultra violet
light.
RESULT OF EXAMINATION
1. Blood has been detected in the exhibits as follows :-
(i) Exhibit marked – A – At places.
(ii) Exhibit marked – B- At places.
(iii) Exhibit marked – C-over large areas.
2. Semen has been detected in the exhibit marked ‘A’.
3. Semen could not be detected in any of the exhibit
marked ‘B’ and ‘C’.
4. Serological report on origin and group of blood and
semen would follow.”
10. The medical report dated 01.04.2012, prepared by P.W. 4
Dr. Manju Kumari has been marked as Exh.-1, relevant portion
whereof is reproduced herein below:-
"Height- 3 feet Teeth- 24
Weight-17 kg. MI- Old Scur mark on left knee joint.
Breast not developed
Axillary hair not present. No pubic hair present.
A lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 /4 cm x 1/ 4 cm long vertical
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.505 of 2015 dt.18-01-2025
13/20
in the midline (at 6 o’clock) position over perineum and
extended through Pos. commissure and farcheseu fresh
blood over the labia laceration.
Bruise 1/2 cm x 1/ 2 cm over left and right wall of
vagina.”
In the supplementary medical report dated 21.5.2021,
marked as Exh. 1/1 prepared by P.W.4, it has been opined that
on the basis of genital injury, evidence of rape is present. P.W.4
i.e. Dr. Manju Kumari has stated in her examination-in-chief
that on 01.04.2012, she was posted at Sadar Hopital Khagaria as
Medical Officer and had examined the prosecutrix and found the
injuries, as has been recorded by her in the medical report dated
01.04.2012 which has been proved by her inasmuch as she has
stated that the same was prepared by her as also bears her
signature. P.W.4 has also proved the supplementary medical
report of the prosecutrix dated 21.05.2012, wherein it has been
opined that considering the genital injury, evidence of rape is
present. In her cross-examination, P.W.4 has stated that injury
found on the body of victim may be possible by pointed hard
substance but she has denied that she had not found any
evidence of rape on the victim and that her report and opinion is
untrue.
11. As regards the arguments advanced by the learned
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.505 of 2015 dt.18-01-2025
14/20
counsel for the appellant, we have perused the evidence of
P.W.2 and P.W.8 from which we find that minor inconsistencies
on trivial matters might be there on account of the said
witnesses belonging to rustic background and being practically
illiterate, hence, to examine their evidence with microscopic
approach would be contrary to the aim and object of justice
oriented judicial system. Upon perusal of the fardbeyan of P.W.
2 and the evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 8, we find that the factum
of rape having been committed by the appellant with the
prosecutrix is narrated therein consistently apart from there
being no discrepancy/contradiction. We also find from the
medical report dated 01.04.2012 that injury / lacerated wound
has been found over the left and right wall of vagina and in the
midline portion over the perineum, which extends up to
posterior commissure, which definitely corroborates the factum
of rape having been committed upon the prosecutrix and the
same also stands substantiated from the supplementary medical
report dated 21.5.2012, wherein it has been opined that evidence
of rape is present, considering the nature of genital injury, which
further stands corroborated from the report of the Forensic
Science Laboratory, Bihar, Patna, dated 24.8.2012, according to
which blood has been detected on the clothes of the prosecutrix
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.505 of 2015 dt.18-01-2025
15/20
while semen has been detected on her undergarment (panty). It
is not necessary that semen / sperm should be found within the
vagina.
12. It is a well-settled law that in a case of rape, the testimony
of a prosecutrix stands on a better footing as compared to that of
an injured witness and it is really not necessary to insist for
corroboration, if the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires
confidence and appears to be credible. It is equally a well-
settled law that conviction can be recorded on the sole testimony
of the prosecutrix, if her evidence inspires confidence and there
is absence of circumstances, which militate against her veracity.
Reference, in this connection be had to the judgment, rendered
by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Wahid Khan vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 9 as also to the
judgment, rendered in the case of Vijay @ Chinee vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 191. It would be
gainful to refer to yet another judgment, rendered by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sham Singh vs. State of
Haryana, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 34, paragraphs no. 6 and 7
whereof are reproduced herein below:-
“6. We are conscious that the courts shoulder a great
responsibility while trying an accused on charges of rape.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.505 of 2015 dt.18-01-2025
16/20They must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity.
The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a
case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or
insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the
prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out
an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If the evidence of
the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon
without seeking corroboration of her statement in
material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it
difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may
look for evidence which may lend assurance to her
testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of
an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be
appreciated in the background of the entire case and the
court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive
while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations or
sexual assaults. [See State of Punjab v.Gurmit Singh
[State of Punjab v.Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384: 1996
SCC (Cri) 316] (SCC p. 403, para 21).]
7. It is also by now well settled that the courts must, while
evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a
case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come
forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement
against her honour such as is involved in the commission
of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation,
supposed considerations which have no material effect on
the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies
in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the
discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.505 of 2015 dt.18-01-2025
17/20allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution
case. The inherent bashfulness of the females and the
tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are
factors which the courts should not overlook. The
testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless
there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking
for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find
no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual
assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony
inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking
corroboration of her statement before relying upon the
same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to
injury. (See Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam [Ranjit
Hazarika v. State of Assam, (1998) 8 SCC 635]).”
13. We find that the evidence of the prosecutrix is not only
credible but also reliable and fully trustworthy as also there is
no reason to doubt about the genuineness of the same, hence,
the conviction of the appellant, relying on the sole testimony of
the prosecutrix, can definitely be sustained. In the case of
Ganesan vs. State, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 573, the Hon’ble
Apex Court has observed and held that there can be a conviction
on the sole testimony of the victim / prosecutrix when the
deposition of the prosecutrix is found to be trustworthy,
unblemished and credible.
14. As regards the farbeyan / FIR being not exhibited and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.505 of 2015 dt.18-01-2025
18/20
proved, this Court would refer to the observations of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Krishna Mochi
& Others vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2002) 6 SCC 81,
wherein it has been held that even if the first information report
is not proved, it would not be a ground for acquittal but the case
would depend upon the evidence led by the prosecution. In the
present case, the occurrence, as narrated in the fardbeyan / FIR,
has also been narrated in the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W. 8,
hence, merely because the fardbeyan / FIR has not been
exhibited in the present case, the same has neither caused any
prejudice to the appellant nor it makes any material difference.
As far as non-examination of investigating officer is concerned,
we find that the Appellant has failed to demonstrate the
prejudice caused to him, hence the same cannot in any manner
effect the prosecution case. It is a well settled law that the
persecution case need not fail solely due to non-examination of
the Investigation Officer, as long as the eye-witness (prosecutrix
in the present case) credibility stays intact. Reference in this
connection be had to a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Behari Prasad & Ors. vs. The State of
Bihar, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 317. As regards the contention
of the learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that Section
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.505 of 2015 dt.18-01-2025
19/20
53 of the Cr.P.C. has been violated, we find that in the present
case Section 53A of the Cr.P.C. would be applicable and not
Section 53 of the Cr.P.C.. Moreover, the appellant was arrested
after four days of commission of the offence, hence, the
Investigating Officer might not have thought it proper to get the
appellant examined by a Medical Practitioner in view of the fact
that no recovery of the clothes of the appellant bearing
bloodstains / semen was made. In fact, if the appellant was
sanguine about his innocence, he could have moved an
application before the learned Trial Court for examination of his
semen / getting DNA test of his blood sample, hair, skin, tissue
etc. conducted, for the purposes of matching the same with the
semen / spermatozoa found on the undergarment of the
prosecutrix, however he remained reticent.
15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present
case and the evidence, which has been brought on record to
prove the allegations levelled against the appellant beyond pale
of any reasonable doubt as well as considering the credibility
and trustworthiness of the evidence of the prosecution, which
has not been discredited during the course of cross-examination,
coupled with the medical report / FSL report, there is no reason
to create any doubt. We have examined the materials available
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.505 of 2015 dt.18-01-2025
20/20
on record and do not find any apparent error in the impugned
judgment of conviction and sentence, hence, the same does not
require any interference.
16. Before parting, we may hasten to add that rape is the most
heinous crime, not only against the victim but also the society at
large which leaves the victims with deep emotional scar apart
from being an unlawful intrusion on the right of privacy and
sanctity of a female. Sexual violence is not only a barbaric act
but a crime against basic human rights as also violative of the
victim’s fundamental right, namely the right to life, as enshrined
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, thus, the Courts
are not only expected to deal with cases of rape with utmost
sensitivity but also sternly and mercilessly.
17. Accordingly, the present appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal (DB)
No. 505 of 2015 stands dismissed.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
(Shailendra Singh, J)
Ajay/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE 16.1.2025 Uploading Date 18.01.2025 Transmission Date NA
[ad_1]
Source link