1
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.413 OF 2004
- - - -
Against the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 8.4.2004 and 15.4.2004 passed by the Ist
Additional Sessions Judge, Buxar, in Sessions Trial No.
190 of 2000.
- - - -
UMAKANT BHAR @ BIDEO son of Daroga Rai alias Daroga
Bhar, resident of Bichala Tola, Jalilpur, P.S. Rajpur,
District Buxar
... ... Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Respondent
For the appellant: Shri Binod Kumar Singh
Shri Subhash Kumar
For the State : Shri Ashwini Kumar Sinha, A.P.P.
P R E S E N T
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT. MRIDULA MISHRA
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARNIDHAR JHA
– – – –
Mridula Mishra &
Dharnidhar Jha, JJ.- The sole appellant was convicted for
committing offence under Section 376 of the Indian
Penal Code and sentenced R.I. for 12 years by the
judgment and order dated 8.4.2004 and 15.4.2004 passed
by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Buxar, in
Sessions Trial No. 190 of 2000.
2. The prosecution case as disclosed in the F.I.R.
was that the informant, father of the victim, on
29.6.2000 had gone in the early morning to do the work
of labourer in the nearby Village. On the same day at
about 5 P.M. he came to know from his co-villager that
appellant Umakant Bhar alias Bideo had committed rape
upon his daughter who was aged about five years. When
he came back to his house he found his daughter lying
unconscious and blood was oozing out from her private
2
part, her pant was blood stained. When the victim girl
regained consciousness she narrated the incident
stating that, when she was playing with the children of
the school, the appellant came and took her towards the
dilapidated portion of the school and committed rape
upon her by putting cloth in her mouth. The daughter of
the informant came to her house and narrated this to
her aunt. The informant gave an information to the
local Dafadar who informed the police. Thereafter, the
F.I.R. of Rajpur P.S.Case No.46 of 2000 was registered
under Section 376 of the Indian penal Code.
3. After completing investigation the police
submitted charge sheet, cognizance was taken and the
case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial.
Ultimately, the trial ended in the conviction and
sentence awarded as indicated in the first paragraph of
the present judgment.
4. 11 witnesses were examined by the prosecution
in support of the charge. P.W. 3 is the informant who
has supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.4, Fula
Devi is the aunt of the victim girl. P.W. 5 Saraswati
Devi, P.W. 6 Budhia Devi and P.W. 7 Lalita Devi who
were the ladies of neighbourhood of the informant have
also supported the prosecution case. P.W. 9 Sumitra
Kumari is the victim girl who has fully supported the
case of the prosecution and also deposed that after the
3
offence was committed she went o her house and narrated
the incident to her aunt, P.W. 4 Fula Devi. P.W. 11 Dr.
Hari Narain Pandey who was one of the member of the
Medical Board consisting of Dr.Babita Kumari, Dr.
Deepak Prasad, had examined the victim girl, and proved
injury report Ext. 5. The Medical Board’s report
disclosed that Undergarments of the vagina was found
stained with blood. Hymen was ruptured margin ragged,
no bleeding. The report of the Medical Board was
sufficient to prove that it was a case of rape.
Considering the evidence on record, the trial court
convicted the appellant under Section 376 of the Penal
Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 12 years.
5. It was submitted by learned counsel for the
appellant that the appellant was arrested on 29.6.2000
and since then he has continuously remained in custody
till date. He has completed ten years and twenty six
days in custody and as the appellant has completed
almost the period of sentence as sukch he should be
released.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case and the evidence on record of the trial court, we
do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment
of conviction passed against the appellant. So far the
sentence is concerned, considering that the appellant
4
has remained in custody for over ten years, it is
modified to the period already undergone by him.
7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with the
above modification in sentence. The appellant, who is
in custody, is directed to be released forthwith, if
not wanted in any other case.
( Mridula Mishra, J.)
( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)
Patna High Court
The 26th July, 2010
Kanth/N.A.F.R.