In Rajballabh Prasad @Rajballabh Yadav vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Mohit Kumar Shah and Harish Kumar delivered it's 315 page long judgement dated August 14, 2025. It concluded:"The appellant of the first case, i.e. Rajballabh Prasad @Rajballabh Yadav (in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 224 of 2019), the appellant of the second case, i.e. Sulekha Devi (in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 165 of 2019) and the appellant of the third case, i.e. Radha Devi (in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 200 of 2019) who are in custody, are directed to be released from jail, forthwith unless required in any other case...." The judgement was authored by Justice Shah.
The Court heard the case as part of six appeals preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 arose out of the same judgment of conviction dated December 15, 2018 and order of sentence dated December 21, 2018, passed by the Special Judge (Elected Member of Parliament, Member of Legislative Assembly and Member of Legislative Council), Bihar, Patna in Special Case No. 145 of 2018 (arising out of Mahila (Nalanda) P.S. Case No. 15 of 2016) and therefore, these appeals were heard together and was disposed off by the common judgment and order.
The prosecutrix had filed a written report on February 9, 2016 before the Officer-in-Charge, Mahila Police Station, Biharsharif, Nalanda wherein she had stated that she was aged about 15 years, she is resident of Village Sultanpur, P.S.-Rahui, District-Nalanda and at the moment she was staying with two of her elder sisters and one younger brother in the house of Bishundeo Kumar on rent, which is situated at Garhpar, Professor Colony and there she resides and studies. She also tated that in her neighbourhood Sulekha Devi(Appellant No.2), wife of Arun Kumar, Mohalla- Garhpar (Professor Colony), P.S.-Biharsharif, District-Nalanda was residing, with whom they had developed good acquaintance. On February 6, 2016 at about 4 o’clock in the evening, Sulekha Devia asked the prosecutrix to come along with her to a birthday party, whereafter she asked her elder sister i.e P.W.-1, then she enquired as to where she has to go, upon which she replied-near Bharao Chowk and then her sister had given permission to go.
The prosecutrix had left along with Sulekha Devi and her daughter, namely Chhoti (Appellant No.6) and then she was firstly taken to Ramchandarpur Bus Stand, from where they had caught a bus to go to Bakhtiyarpur and when the prosecutrix had asked them as to where she was being taken, Sulekha Devi(Appellant No.2) told her that she would pick her mother from Bakhtiyarpur and then they would go along with her to the party.
Thereafter, they reached Bakhtiyarpur where a Bolero vehicle was parked and after staying there for some time Sulekha Devi along with her mother and the prosecutrix sat in the vehicle and then they reached Giriyak in between 11.00-11.30 P.M. The prosecutrix could not read the name of the place since it was dark, whereafter she was taken to a house which was four storied, situated at Giriyak, P.S.-Biharsharif and she was made to sit there by Sulekha Devi (Appellant No.2), who then told her that one teacher would come and ask her some questions. The prosecutrix then told her that they were to go to a birthday party but instead where she was brought, upon which Sulekha Devi (Appellant No.2) told her that Sir was a very nice person, hence she should do whatever she was saying quietly. After some time, a person came in the house, who was around 40-50 years old, whose name the prosecutrix did not know and he along with Sulekha Devi (Appellant No.2) started taking liquor, whereafter she was also asked to drink, but she objected. Outside, 4-5 persons were standing, who were keeping a watch.
After, consuming liquor, Sulekha Devi (Appellant No.2) had disrobed the prosecutrix, made her lie down on the bed, caught her hand and stuffed cloth in her mouth, whereafter the person who had consumed liquor raped the prosecutrix and thereafter Sulekha Devi (Appellant No.2) had taken the prosecutrix to another room. In the morning at about 10:00 A.M., Sulekha Devi (Appellant No.2) had brought the prosecutrix along with her and dropped her at her house. The prosecutrix also stated that when she was in the other room of the house, she heard about exchange of money. After coming back, the prosecutrix had disclosed the entire incident to her elder sister PW-1 in the evening. After hearing about the occurrence, sister of the prosecutrix had informed her father and then her father had arrived there, who heard about the entire incident and then he was brought the prosecutrix to the police station where she was submitting her written report. The prosecutrix had stated that she can recognize the person who had committed the incident as also those persons who were keeping vigil, upon seeing them again. The prosecutrix prayed for taking appropriate legal action.
On the basis of the written report dated February 9, 2016, a formal FIR, bearing Mahila (Nalanda) P.S. Case No. 15 of 2016 was registered on February 9, 2016 at 10.30 A.M. for the offences under Sections 376, 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against Sulekha Devi (Appellant No. 2), one 40-50 years old person and 4-5 other persons. Later on, vide order dated February 26, 2016 passed by the A.D.J.-1st-cum-Special Judge, MP/MLA Court,Nalanda at Bihar Sharif, Sections 366(A)/370/370(A)/212/120(B) of the IPC and Sections 4/5/6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 were added.
After investigation and finding the case to be true qua all the aforesaid six appellants, the police submitted charge-sheet No. 30 of 2016 on April 20, 2016 under Sections 366(A), 376, 370, 370(A), 212, 420, 109, 120(B) of the IPC, Sections 4, 8 and 17 of the POCSO Act and Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Act, 1956, while keeping the investigation pending against accused Bishnu Prasad and others. The Trial Court had then taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 366(A), 370, 370(A), 376, 212, 109, 420/120(B) of the IPC, Sections 4, 8 and 17 of the POCSO Act and Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Act, 1956 against all the six appellants vide order dated April 22, 2016. The charges were then framed by the Trial Court, vide order dated September 6, 2016 against the six appellants under various provisions of law.
No comments:
Post a Comment