Lal Marandi vs State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

Amareshwar Sahay, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23rd May, 1991, passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 410 of 1990, whereby and whereunder, the learned Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty for the offence under Sections 376 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code and has sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of 7 years under both the counts for the said offence. However, the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

The case of the prosecution in short is that Sriful Hansda (PW 2) the wife of Churka Marandi (PW 3) lodged a written report before the police alleging therein that on 15.4.1990 she was at the house of Barka Marandi (PW 6) for taking Pochai drink. In the meantime the appellant Lal Marandi of the same village came there, caught hold of her and, thereafter, dragged her towards the jungle with a view to commit rape on her. She wanted to raise alarm but the appellant gagged her mouth by putting cloth and, therefore, she could not raise any alarm. Thereafter, the appellant pulled the informant down and then committed rape on the point of dagger. After satisfying his sexual hunger he left her loose. Thereafter, the informant came to her residence, narrated the story to her husband and then the matter was reported to the village Pradhan, who decided to hold panchayati but no panchayati could be held as the appellant did not attend the panchayati. Therefore, the matter was reported to the police.

In order to establish the charges, altogether 8 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, out of them PW 6 Barka Marandi and PW 7 Naiki Marandi, wife of Barka Marandi, were declared hostile.

PW 1 Chhutar Marandi in his evidence has stated that Churka Marandi and his wife Sriful Hansda came to her house and narrated the story of rape committed by the appellant Lal Marandi. He is not an eye-witness to the occurrence but he has stated whatever was told to him by the informant and her husband.

PW 2 is Sriful Hansda, i.e. the prosecutrix herself. In her examination-in-chief she has stated that she had gone to the house of Barka Marandi to take meal. She stated as under :-

Main Barka ke Ghar khana khane ke liye gayee thi kyoki uska kaam ki thi.

In her cross-examination in paragraph 3 she has stated that when she tried to raise alarm, but her mouth was gagged. She has further stated that the wife of Barka Marandi was present at that time but she did not do anything. She has further stated in paragraph 4 of her evidence that when she was thrown on the ground, her blouse was torn but she did not receive any injury on her person and the appellant kept her in the jungle for about 3 hours.

It appears from her evidence that she has tried to develop the story from one stage to another. In the FIR she has alleged that she had gone to the house of Barka Marandi to take Pochai drink whereas no such statement was made by her in Court father she stated that she had gone to the house of Barka Marandi to take meal as she has worked for him. She has further developed the story in her evidence that when she was raising alarm, the wife of Barka Marandi was present there but she did not do anything. This vital fact was not stated in the FIR. This statement of the prosecutrix has also not been corroborated either by Barka Marandi or his wife. In fact both the two witnesses were declared hostile.

According to the doctor Puspalata Tudu (PW 5), the prosecutrix was found to be above 19 years of age and was a married lady. Neither any injury no her private part nor on her person was found by the doctor, though, according to the victim lady, she was forcibly thrown on the ground and her blouse was torn but surprisingly not a single injury was found on her by the doctor. Even on her private part no kind of any injury was found. The doctor opined that no opinion could be given whether the rape was committed on her or not.

I am conscious of the fact that in a case of rape even on the solitary statement of the prosecutrix, conviction can be made but the statement of that prosecutrix must be of such nature, which may not create any doubt upon her version. In the present case, I find that the evidence of the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence. Her statement is not fully trustworthy.

As a matter of fact the story of the prosecutrix appears to be unbelievable and even the two prime witnesses namely, PW 6 and PW 7 have not supported the prosecution. Therefore, the evidence of the prosecution appears to be very weak in nature and on such weak evidence, it is unsafe to convict a person for the offence of rape and kidnapping.

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in Sessions Case No. 410 of 1990 is hereby set aside. The appellant, who is on bail, is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds.