In X. vs. 1. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Sourendra Pandey delivered a 11-page long judgement dated September 19, 2026, wherein, it concluded: "25. The learned trial court has stated that the victim had made statement in the FIR as well as in her 164 Cr.P.C. statement about providing a sum of Rs. 17,000/- to the accused, which seems to be suspicious. The doctor had recorded that it was very difficult to say whether rape had occurred or not. 26. We have re-appreciated the entire evidences on the record. This Court comes to a conclusion that no perversity may be found in the judgment of the learned trial court. It is well settled that unless an irresistible conclusion is reached by the Appellate Court that the guilt of the accused-respondent no. 2 is proved beyond all reasonable doubts, the judgment of acquittal need not be interfered with. Taking note of this principle governing an appeal against acquittal, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. 27. This appeal has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. 28. Let a copy of this judgment along with the trial court’s record be sent down to the learned trial court."
The appeal has been preferred under proviso to Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for setting aside the judgment of acquittal dated January 23, 2025 in a Sessions Trial of 2022, arising out of Sahiyara P.S. Case No.47 of 2022, J.R. No.943 of 2022 (State of Bihar vs. Victim 'X') passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge-V-cum-Exclusive Special Judge (Rape and POCSO), Sitamarhi. The Trial Court acquitted the sole accused (respondent no.2 before this Court) of the charges/offences punishable under Sections 376, 504 and 506 IPC.
The prosecution case is based on a written information submitted by the victim (P.W.6) on April 9, 2022. In her written information, she has declared her age as 26 years and the date of occurrence has been set up as that of seven years ago. The victim (P.W. 6) has stated that there was an affair between her and the accused outside the marriage and on the pretext of marrying her, the accused established illegal physical relationship on many occasions. About five years ago, there was a panchayti by the village panchans on the issue and thereafter, the accused had gone outside. It is stated that about two years back the accused-respondent no. 2 came and told the victim that he would marry her, thereafter, he again started establishing illegal relationship with her and whenever she used to tell him to marry her, then he was promising her that he would definitely marry her and that she should not be worried about it. She has stated that when she started pressurizing the accused to solemnize marriage then the accused refused to marry her and he was ready to go outside on 13.04.2022, therefore, the victim ‘X’ came to the police station and submitted a written information.
On the basis of the said written information, Sahiyara P.S. Case dated April 9, 2022, was registered under Sections 376/506 of the IPC against respondent no. 2. After investigation, police submitted a chargesheet bearing Chargesheet No. 100 of 2022 dated June 5, 2022 under Section 376/504 IPC against respondent no. 2. Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sitamarhi vide order dated July 26, 2022 took cognizance of the offence and vide order dated July 29, 2022 committed the records to the court of sessions. Charges were read over in Hindi and explained to respondent no. 2 to which he pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, vide order dated November 22, 2022, charges were framed against him under Sections 376, 504 and 506 IPC. 6. In course of the trial, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses and got exhibited various documentary evidence.
Justice Prasad who authored the Division Bench verdict recorded: "14. This Court finds that the victim has herself deposed as PW-6. She has reiterated her version in her examination-in-chief. It has come in her evidence that one Ravi Kumar had written the application, but he had not given his certificate and signature on the application. She has stated that there is no paper about the panchayati held five years ago. She has stated that no correspondence had taken place between her and the accused, but the accused used to talk to her over phone and he was sending some goods for the children. She had not stated anyone that she had been in love affair with the accused-respondent no. 2. She has stated that, to submit her application, she had gone to the police station with her mother, but her mother had not put her thumb impression or signature thereon. She has stated that the accused had given her medicine about three years ago for purpose of abortion. 15. The defence suggested her that the parents of the accused were helping her family, but when they stopped providing financial assistance, then, with an intention to usurp the money, this false case was registered. The victim (PW-6), however, denied this suggestion. 16. This Court finds that PW-1 and PW-2 are the mother and sister of the victim. They have made their statements on the basis of the information furnished by the victim. 17. PW-2 has stated that her sister’s age at present is 26 years and at the time when she had come in contact with the accused-respondent no. 2, she was 19 years old and was major. 18. PW-3 is another sister of the victim, who has stated about the panchayati, but she did not remember the date of the panchayati and has stated that there was no paper of panchayati. She was suggested by the defence that she was making a statement on the basis of the story told to her by the victim (PW-6).
Reliance in this regard was placed on the judgments of the High Court and the Supreme Court in the case of XXXX vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No.3431 of 2023 reported in 2024 (3) SCC 496, Om Prakash Mishra vs. State of Bihar in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.2509 of 2017 reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Pat 507, Deelip Singh @ Dilip Kumar vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 2005 SC 203 and Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Kumar Verma vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in 2007 (7) SCC 413.
Justice Prasad observed: 23. The learned trial court has noticed that, in this case the victim had set up the date of occurrence which was seven years ago. The victim was herself an adult and was able to understand the consequences of the physical relationship. She claims to have established a physical relationship with the accused-respondent no. 2 for five years and then again for two years. She has stated about her affairs outside the marriage (love affairs) and she has stated in paragraph ‘6’ of her deposition that during the period when she remained with the appellant, she never made any complaint against him for establishing physical relationship. 24. PW-1 has stated that her daughter went for abortion and that it was done with the consent of the respondent no. 2 and her daughter."
No comments:
Post a Comment