Decided on March 26,2021

Vakil Paswan Appellant
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents


BIRENDRA KUMAR, J. - (1.) This appeal is against the judgment of conviction. The sole appellant-Vakil Paswan faced trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Rohtas at Sasaram in connection with Sessions Trial No. 871 of 2014 arising out of Chenari P.S. Case No. 31 of 2014 registered under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Trial Judge found the appellant guilty for offences under Sections 376/511, 354 and 354(B) of the Indian Penal Code by the impugned judgment dated 27.06.2019. The learned Trial Judge awarded rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of rupees five thousand for offence under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment of one year was ordered. Likewise, three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rupees one thousand was awarded for offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine there is direction of one month rigorous imprisonment. For offence under Section 354(B) of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment of five years was awarded besides fine of rupees two thousand and in default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo further four months rigorous imprisonment. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently by the impugned order dated 29.06.2010.
(2.) The prosecution case, as disclosed in the written report of the prosecutrix (P.W.4), is that on 03.03.2014, at about 11:00 p.m., the prosecutrix was sleeping inside her house after closing the doors. The appellant jumped over the boundary wall and entered into the room of the informant along with a gun. The appellant sat on the body of the informant and caught her breast, started to disrobe her but the victim made alarm and the neighbours Laxman Paswan (P.W. 1), Saroj Paswan (P.W. 2) came then only she could save herself. She stated that husband and brother of the husband were out side the village to earn their livelihood. Hence, no male was there in the house. The written report is Ext. 1.
(3.) After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet and, accordingly, the appellant was put on trial. During course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether four witnesses. Besides the aforesaid two witnesses P.W.3 is Ramesh Paswan and P.W. 4, the prosecutrix herself.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.