In its judgement dated January 18, 2025, Patna High Court's division bench of Justices Mohit Kumar Shah and Shailendra Singh upheld judgment of conviction and sentence dated May 12, 2015 and May 18, 2015 respectively, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Khagaria in Ranjit Sharma vs. The State of Bihar. The Trial Judge had convicted Ranjit Sharma, the sole appellant for commission of offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him.
On March 31, 2012 at 22:00 hours, fardbeyan of one Sumitra Devi, wife of Arjun Goswami, prosecution witness, 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, the informant stated that her grand-daughter (“the prosecutrix”) was staying with her since past 3-4 years in her house. On March 31, 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 tbe 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 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.
After recording of the fardbeyan, a formal FIR was registered for offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code on April 1, 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 May 31, 2012 against the appellant. Thereafter, on June 4, 2012, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria, had taken cognizance of offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequently on June 23, 2012, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was numbered as Sessions Trial No. 216 of 2012. On September 27, 2012, charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the appellant.
Notably, the appellant was arrested after four days of commission of the offence. The Court observed: "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."
The High Court found that th facts and circumstances 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. The Court observed: "We have examined the materials available 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." The judgement was authored by Justice Mohit Kumar Shah.
The High Court observed:"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." It has been held in Ganesan vs. State, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 573.
The High Court took note of decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Wahid Khan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 9, Vijay @ Chinee vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 191 and Sham Singh vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 34.
The High Court judgement reads:"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." The appeal was dismissed.
No comments:
Post a Comment