IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. REV. No.980 of 2007
SITA DEVI, wife of Shatrughan Sah, resident of village
Chandipur, P.S. Kishanpur, District Supaul.
....Petitioner
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. Bechan Mandal
3. Shatrughan Mandal
4. Shiv Ram Mandal, all sons of Bunny Lal Mandal, resident of
village chandipur, p.s. Kishanpur, District Supaul.
...opposite parties.
For the Petitioner:Mr. Pramod Mishra &
:Mr. Vijay Kumar Mukul
For the O.P.Nos. 2 to 4 :Mr. Shiva Shanka Sharma.
-----------
04. 05.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel representing the opposite parties.
The petitioner who is the informant of Kishanpur
police station case no.58/98 calls in question the legality and
propriety of the judgment and order of acquittal dated 23.04.2007,
recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge F.T.C.IV,
Saharsa.
P.W.3, namely, Sita Devi lodged a written report
on 29.05.1998 alleging therein that on 27.05.1998 while she was
coming back from her field, the oppoisite parities herein (full
brothers) assaulted her by fists and slaps. An attempt was made to
outrage her modesty by making attempt to remove her Sari. The
opposite parties herein were thus charged under diverse sections
of the Penal Code including section 354,316 and 379 IPC.
At the trial, five witnesses were examined. P.W.1
admittedly has not supported the prosecution case. P.W.3 is the
-2-
informant of the case, whereas P.W.5 is the Investigating Officer.
Learned trial court on evaluation of the evidence of P.W.2 and 3
has come to a conclusion that the informant (P.W.3) in course of
her deposition, has not whispered anything about removal of Sari
at the hands of the accused persons. In that view of the matter, the
charge under section 354 was not found proved. So far as the
charge punishable under section 316 is concerned, it has been
found and recorded with reference to the deposition of the I.O.
(P.W.5) that such allegation was being levelled at a very belated
stage after obtaining a certificate relating to termination of her
pregnancy. Having noticed that this allegation was not levelled in
the FIR and that at the initial state of the investigation no such
allegation was ever made by the informant and P.W. 2. Learned
trial court has not found it fit to rely on their statements made in
the court at the trial.
In view of what I have observed above, the
consideration of the evidence by the learned trial court cannot be
said to be perverse and/or patently illegal justifying any
interference.
There is no merit in this application which is
accordingly dismissed.
hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )