S.T.

388/11 Page-1

DISTRICT- PURNEA.

IN THE COURT OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-2,

PURNEA.

Present :-
Ramesh Chandra Mishra,
Presiding Officer,
Fast Track Court-2,
Purnea.

Dated, Purnea, the 19th day of April, 2018.

Sessions Trial No. 388 of 2011.

CIS No.0002114/13

(Arising out of Complaint Case No.3005/2008, committed to the Court of Sessions on

29-03-2011 by the learned C.J.M. Purnea)

State of Bihar (through Hanifa Khatoon , complainant) ---------------Prosecution.

Versus

Md. Jahangir ,------------------------------------------------------ aged about 28 years.

–--------------Accused.

Charge Under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

For the Prosecution : Sri Hare Ram Thakur, Addl.P.P.

For the Accused : Sri Shyama Nand Biswas, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

1. The above sole accused person, namely, Md. Jahangir stands

charged for the offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code for
committing rape upon the complainant Hanifa Khatoon.

2. Prosecution case, which is based upon Complaint Petition alleging

therein that the occurrence took place in the night of 29-10-2008 at about 11.30
P.M. The complainant after taking night meal had slept with her younger brother
in her house and at that very time DIBIYA was burning. Suddenly the accused
Md. Jahangir alongwith others having Lathi-danda and pistol entered in the house
of complainant after breaking TATTI-DOOR and started looting the valuable
articles of the house. After hearing the sound she woke-up but accused Jahangir
came to her having pistol in his hand and stated to keep silence, otherwise she
would be shot dead alongwith her two children. The other co-associates of
Jahangir gave order to the above accused to commit rape on her, thereafter, she
S.T. 388/11 Page-2

ran towards inside the house but other accused persons started to assault her
brothers, thereafter she stayed there. The above accused Jahangir dragged her in
the house and thrashed her on the ground and after tearing the SARI, BLOUSE
forcibly committed rape on her. The accused persons taken away three thousands
cash and ornaments made of Gold and Silver valuable worth rupees Ten
thousands from the box. This is further case of complainant that the accused
persons threatened her for dire consequences in case of lodging any case against
them and thereafter ran away. The neighbours after hearing hulla, reached there.
Her father came in the morning and the persons of vicinity started to talk about
the alleged occurrence that accused persons are bad elements of the society and
against them the case had to be lodged by the complainant. The above
complainant went to the police station with her father but S.H.O. of the concerned
P.S. was not available and Munshi of Thana suggested the complainant to lodge
case in the Court. Thereafter she came at Civil Court, Purnea and met with a
lawyer and after typing of the draft of complaint petition and after hearing the
contents of complaint petition, she put her L.T.I. and lodged the same in the Court
of C.J.M. Purnea on 10-11-2008. She has further stated in the complaint petition
that the elders of the village arranged panchayati in the village but the accused
persons did not follow the verdict of panches.
3. The learned C.J.M. Purnea after taking statement on S.A. of
complainant and enquiry witnesses, took cognizance of the offence against only
one accused Md. Jahangir for the offence under section 376 of the Indian Penal
Code and ultimately the case was committed to the Court of Sessions by the
learned C.J.M. Purnea vide order dated 29-03-2011 and lastly the case has been
received in this Court at the stage of argument.
4. The charge has been framed against the above sole accused for the
offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code on 18-04-2011
from which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The statement of the accused Md. Jahangir was recorded on 05-01-

2015 in which he has denied from all allegations and from the trend of cross-
examination of prosecution witnesses suggestion put to the prosecution witnesses,
it seems that the above accused having no desire to marry with the complainant
and the complainant put high pressure upon the accused to get marry with the
complainant and on refusal, in revenge she has filed the above case on the basis
of false and fabricated grounds as well as on the baseless allegations.
S.T. 388/11 Page-3

6. Now I have come to the conclusion that whether the prosecution has
been able to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts or not ?
FINDINGS
7. The complainant in order to prove her complaint case examined
altogether 5 witnesses, namely, P.W.1 Bibi Shmsur Khatoon, P.W.2 Hanifa
Khatoon (complainant), P.W.3 Md. Naushad, P.W.4 Md. Jamaluddin and P.W.5
Dr. Sunita Prasad, Medical Officer Sadar Hospital, Purnea.
8. On behalf of the defence, three witnesses have been examined,
namely, D.W.1 Sitabur Rahman, D.W.2 Md. Jahangir Alam and D.W.3 Ratan Lal
Chaudhary, Advocate's Clerk who is formal witness.
9. Now I would like to analyse the evidences of prosecution witnesses
and take up the evidence of P.W.3 Md. Naushad who is said to have independent
witness of the occurrence. He has stated that the alleged occurrence is said to
have taken place about 5 years ago in night at 11 P.M. The above witness after
hearing hulla he reached at the house of complainant where he saw that victim
was weeping and she told that accused Jahangir has committed rape on her and
taken away her ornaments and cash which has been kept for her marriage. She
has further stated in his evidence that her parents are begars and went outside of
the village for begging. Panchayati was convened in between both the parties but
accused did not accept the version of panchayati. In cross-examination he has
stated that the distance of the accused's village from the village of complainant is
more than 1¼ KOSH i.e. less than 4 K.M. He has further stated in para 8 and 9 of
his cross-examination that talk of marriage in between both parties was
developing but it was not settled and the above accused refused to get marry with
the complainant, that is why, the false case was lodged by the complainant. In
para-12 he has stated that he was not Panch in the said panchayati and also not
present in the panchayati. In para-14 he has specifically stated that the accused
had not got married with the complainant, therefore, to put pressure she has filed
this case. The evidence of this witness clearly indicates that the marriage of
accused was not settled with the accused, therefore, she was putting pressure by
way of lodging the above case on false and fabricated grounds. The above
witness is co-villager of the victim as well as not the eye witness of occurrence
but while he reached at the house of victim, he has not seen any person there.
Therefore, his evidence is not reliable and trustworthy.
10. P.W.1 Bibi Shamsur Khatoon is mother of victim Hanifa Khatoon.
She has stated in her chief examination that the alleged occurrence took place
three years ago at about 11 P.M. in the night. At that very time she had gone to
S.T. 388/11 Page-4

her sister's village Sanjheli and came next day of the occurrence to her house
where victim gave information to this witness that the accused had committed
rape on her. She went to the Police Station with the victim but the case was not
taken by the S.H.O., thereafter, her daughter Hanifa Khatoon lodged the case in
Civil Court, Purnea. In cross-examination para-3, she has specifically stated that
Jahangir used to reside at village-Begampur which is at a distance of 9 K.M. from
her village. In between both the villages a river flows and after crossing Bhowri
Ghat any person can reach to her village. In para-5 she has admitted that she is
not the eye witness of the occurrence but on the statement of her daughter Hanifa
Khatoon she is adducing her evidence in Court. The accused is not known to her
from earlier. The accused person used to come at his NANA house Habir co-
villager, thereafter, her daughter shown and identified the accused. She has stated
that after alleged occurrence the accused refused to marry with the victim. From
the perusal of evidence of this witness it reveals that on the alleged date of
occurrence she was not at her house. She has also admitted in her testimony that
accused belong to village-Begampur which is at a distance of 9 K.M. from her
village and after crossing the BHOWRY GHAT it is possible to reach at her
village. She has also admitted that accused is not known to her before the alleged
occurrence. These all evidences clearly show that it is not probable that a person
with other family members after travelling of 9 K.M. and crossing the river came
at the victim's house and commit rape in the manner as stated by the complainant.
The accused is not known to this witness from earlier. All evidence of this
witness is based upon the hearsay witness which does not inspire confidence and
support the prosecution version. The above witness is not trustworthy and
reliable.
11. P.W.2 Hanifa Khatoon is victim as well as complainant of the case.
She has deposed that the alleged occurrence took place before 4 years 8 months
ago at about 11 P.M. in the night. Her further evidence is that accused entered in
her house and committed rape on her. While she was raising alarm, the accused
gave threatening showing fire-arm and taken away her ornaments made of Gold
and Silver. She has further stated that father of Jahangir solemnized the marriage
of accused with another girl. She has further stated that she went to the police
station after the occurrence but the S.H.O. not met there. Thereafter, a panchayati
was arranged of elders wherein the parents and uncles of the accused refused to
marry with complainant. She has also been examined by the doctor. In cross-
examination at para-5 she has specifically stated that if her marriage took place
with accused thenafter she could not file this case. Still her marriage has not been
S.T. 388/11 Page-5

performed with accused. She has further stated in para-8 that she has seen the
accused Jahangir first of all on the date of occurrence and in para-9 she has
admitted that name of accused Satabul and Md. Hazarat has been shown in
Complaint Petition because these are the persons who prevented and restrained
her marriage with the accused. From perusal of the evidence of this witness, it is
evident that she has made pressure upon the accused by filing this case because
the accused has to get marry with complainant. She has brought this case to teach
good lession to the accused. Her evidence has not got supported and corroborated
by any independent witness. It is most surprising that accused person came at her
house after crossing a river from a good distance of 9 K.M. from village-
Begampur and committed rape and looted valuable articles but none of the
neighbours of the village having got knowledge of it. Moreover, the manner of
committing alleged occurrence has been completely changed in the evidence.
She has stated in the complaint petition that she went to the police station
concerned with her father for lodging the case against the accused but her mother
P.W.1 says that she went with the victim to the P.S. concerned for lodging the case
while the complainant stated nothing about her father or mother. Therefore, there
is serious contradiction in the evidence of complainant which creates serious
doubt about truthfulness of the occurrence. The father of complainant has not
been examined on behalf of the complainant. Therefore, considering her
testimony it appears that the manner of committing occurrence has been
completely changed as well as vital contradiction in lodging the case has been
also found in the case. Therefore, her evidence does not appear to be reliable and
inspire confidence to the reality and truthfulness of the occurrence and it clearly
creates doubts.
12. P.W.4 is an advocate's clerk who is formal and proved the signature
of lawyer on the complaint petition and L.T.I. of complainant on complaint
petition which has been marked Ext.1.

13. P.W.5 Dr. Sunita Prasad has been examined and she has stated that
on 11-11-2008 she was posted as a Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital, Purnea and
on that very date vide order of C.J.M. Purnea as per identification of advocate
Ram Sahay she examined the victim Hanifa Khatoon at about 1.50 P.M. and
found the followings on her person :-
Height- 5' 1” , Weight- 50 Kilograms, Breast- developed, Pubic
hair and axillary hair was well grown. M.I.- (i) Old scar on right wrist, (ii) A
black mole on cheen. Injury- A lacerated wound on right middle finger 1” x 1”
S.T. 388/11 Page-6

infected with pus discharge caused by hard and blunt substance. Nature of injury-
Simple. Time- Within one week to two weeks. No injury was found on her
private part. Old ruptured hymen was found. Vaginal swab was taken and sent to
Pathologist for Microscopic examination for presence of spermatozoa. For
determination of age X-ray A/P view of wrist, elbow, pelvice was advised.
Vaginal swab report was seen by the doctor and spermatozoa was not found. As
per report of radiologist her age has been determined between 18 to 19 years.
The above Medical report is in his pen and signature of the above witness which
has been marked Ext.2.
In the opinion of the above doctor there was no sign of rape at the
time of her examination. The above witness has been examined in which the
above witness has stated that at the time of examination she has not found any
sign of sexual intercourse with the victim.
In the light of above discussions, it appears that the victim was
examined by the doctor on the basis of the report of C.J.M. Purnea wherein no
sign of rape was found during the course of examination of the victim. Therefore,
the evidence of this witness does not support the prosecution case.

14. In the case of rape if the evidence of sole victim inspiring

confidence and without any blamise it does not require for its corroboration by
any other independent witness because rape usually committed alone but in this
particular case from the critical appreciation of the prosecution witnesses
testimonies and itself the complainant, it is evident that the complainant in
retaliation of non-fulfilment and settlement of the marriage with the accused she
has filed the present case to teach good lession to accused on the basis of false
and fabricated grounds.
15 According to complainant, the alleged occurrence took place in the
night of 29-10-2008 while the case has been lodged after a long delay of 12 days.
She has stated in her complaint petition that after alleged occurrence she went to
P.S. K.Nagar with her father and witnesses for lodging the case but the S.H.O. of
K.Nagar P.S. was not present and Munshi of Police Station advised her to lodge
the case in Court. In course of trial, father of complainant has not been examined
and her mother has stated nothing in her examination-in-chief except that she
went to the police station K. Nagar for lodging the case. On behalf of the
complainant not a signle panch has been examined in order to explain the delay.
The delay of 12 days in lodging the case in the light of evidence led by the
prosecution witnesses, it appears that she has after-thought suppressing the
S.T. 388/11 Page-7

material facts, lodged the case which clearly creates doubt to the truthfulness of
the occurrence. The reasons assigned in the complaint petition has not been
proved by the complainant also. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the
case the evidence led by the complainant with regard to delay in lodging the case
has not been explained in accordance with law.

16. In the light of above discussions made above, it is opined that

prosecution has failed in proving the guilt of the accused person beyond the
shadow of reasonable doubts.
17. I have gone through the record and evidences of witnesses, I find
and hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge against the
above accused Md. Jahangir for the offence under section 376 I.P.C., therefore, he
is acquitted accordingly. He is also discharged from the liability of his bail bond.
(Dictated & corrected by me)

(Ramesh Chandra Mishra)

(Ramesh Chandra Mishra) Presiding Officer,
Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-2
Fast Track Court-2 Purnea. 19-4-2018
Purnea. 19-4-2018.