Ramadhar Paswan vs State of Bihar

Akhilesh Chandra, J.—Heard learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. The solitary appellant, namely, Ramadhar Paswan, has preferred this appeal against his conviction for the offence u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the prosecutrix as awarded on 16th Day of February, 2002 by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Sessions Trial No. 204 of 2001 arising out of Balia P.S. Case No. 193 of 2000.

The prosecutrix P.W. 1 has got recorded her Fardbeyan on 24-9-2000 at 13.00 hours at village Manserpus with assertion that on previous night at about 10.000 p.m. while sale arrived at Balia railway station and proceeded on foot for her village roughly at 11.00 p.m. she arrived at a distance of 1.50 yards from Bathan of one Khedan Mahto, the appellant (Rickshaw Puller) arrived from village and took her by force towards an orchard and committed rape upon her three to four times. The appellant did not permit her to raise any alarm and after satisfying his lust, he fled-away. After the said occurrence the victim came to village and in the next morning reported the police about the incident and bringing at place of occurrence where the said Rickshaw was still available.

It is pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that out of total six witnesses examined during trial. P.W. 2 (Ramashish Paswan), P.W. 3, (Vishwanath Paswan) and P.W. 4 (Sanjay Singh) have been declared hostile since they stated nothing about the occurrence.

P.W. 6 (Shushila Devi) has examined the prosecutrix, found no sign of rape etc. and proved Exhibit-3, P.W. 5 (Gupteshwar Singh) is the Investigating Officer, proved Exhibit-1 (Formal First Information Report) and Exhibit-2 (Fardbeyan) and last, but not the list P.W. 1 (Kaushaliya Devi), the prosecutrix, has stated altogether a different story as she not only reduced the time of occurrence from 11.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. but also made this case as a case of gang rape introducing four persons as miscreants including the appellant and in the cross-examination she states that since it was darken night she could not be able to identify the miscreants, who were able to cover her face and on mere doubt she has named the appellant.

The learned trial Court by putting Court''s question fried his level best to ascertain the actual state of affairs, if any otherwise, but she was firm on the statements made during cross-examination and she denied any application of threats or coercion and reaffirm that only on doubt she has named the appellant about whom she could subsequently know that he was not available in the village on the fateful day. Of course, she challenged her innocence.

The learned counsel representing the appellant has vehemently contended that in fact this is the case of no evidence and the Court below on relying the statement recorded u/s 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the victim hold the appellant guilty and awarded the sentence. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in spite of his best efforts could not raise or point out any substantial material to uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellant. Thus, on overall consideration of the facts and circumstances discussed above, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as recorded by the trial Court, is not at all sustainable. Accordingly, it is set aside and the appeal is hereby allowed.