PARWEZ ANSARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR
LAWS(PAT)-2022-6-3
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Decided on June 29,2022

Parwez Ansari Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents




JUDGEMENT

- (1.) By this appeal, appellant/convicted accused Parwez Ansari is challenging the judgment and order dtd. 1/6/2013 and 7/6/2013 respectively passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur, thereby convicting him of the offences punishable under Sec. 376(2)(i)(j) and Sec. 354A of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sec. 3(1)(xi) and Sec. 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. For the offence punishable under Sec. 376(2)(i)(j) of the Indian Penal Code, he is sentence to suffer imprisonment for life apart from imposition of fine of Rs.50,000.00 and default sentence of five years. No separate sentence was imposed on him for the offence punishable under Sec. 354A of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence punishable under Sec. 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the appellant/accused is sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for fiver years. For the offence punishable under Sec. 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, he is sentence to suffer imprisonment for life. Substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently by the learned trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the appellant shall be referred to in his original capacity as an accused.
(2.) Facts leading to the prosecution of the accused projected from the police report can be summarized thus:- (A). Accused Parawez Ansari is resident of village Terhi Bazar falling under Police Station Mohiuddin Nagar of district Samastipur. First informant Ramdev (PW 4) is also resident of the same village. The incident in question allegedly took place after 6:30 PM of 3/3/2013. Six years old daughter of PW 4 Ramdev is stated to be the victim of the crime in question. (B). According to the prosecution case, at about 6:30 PM of 3/3/2013, the PW 5 - the minor female child, aged about 6 years had gone to neighbouring shop for purchasing. She did not return in due time. Therefore, her father PW 4 Ramdev started searching her. He heard her cry emanating from the bank of river Sursar, adjacent to the Aanganwari. PW. 4 Ramdev, therefore, rushed to the spot of the incident followed by Umesh Kumar (PW 2), Devilal, Dharmendra, Ashok Paswan (PW 3) as well as other villagers. They saw the accused committing rape on 6 years old daughter of PW 4 Ramdev. The accused came to be apprehended. The victim female child (PW 5) became unconscious. She as well as the accused were then taken to the hospital at Mohiuddin Nagar by PW 4 Ramdev as well as the co-villagers. (C). The doctor at the Mohiuddin Nagar Hospital telephonically informed the Police Station Mohiuddin Nagar regarding the incident. Thereafter, PW 10 Lal Keshwar Prasad Singh, Police Station Officer, rushed to the hospital. The accused came to be handed over to him and was arrested by him. PW 4 Ramdev then submitted the written FIR and accordingly Crime No. 31/2013 came to be registered at the Police State Mihiuddin Nagar. (D). During the course of investigation, PW 10 Lal Keshwar Prasad Singh, I.O., seized the half pant of the accused vide seizure memo Exhibit-8. Similarly, the Panty of the victim came to be seized vide seizure memo Exhibit-9. The spot came to be inspected. Statement of the witnesses came to be recorded. On completion of routine investigation, the accused came to be charge sheeted. (E). The learned trial Court framed the charge and explained the same to the accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. (F). In order to bring home the guilt to the the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses. The defence of the accused as gathered from the line of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses as well as from his statement under Sec. 313 of the Cr.P.C. is that of total denial. (G). According to the defence version, initially a mob of 50-60 persons entered in the locality where muslims from the village resides. They apprehended Jawed and extracted money from him. He was then let off and for extracting more money, the accused came to be abducted by the mob and, thereafter, he was falsely implicated in the subject crime. The defence has examined two witnesses, namely, DW 1 Md. Mushtaque and DW 2 Md. Nayim. (H). After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment and order was pleased to convict the accused and to sentence as indicated in the opening para of this judgment.
(3.) We heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused. He vehemently argued that though the incident is stated to have been witnessed by number of people, the prosecution has not examined any independent witnesses residing in the houses located near the house of the victim. It is further argued that the victim, according to the prosecution case, had taken medical treatment at the hospital at Mohiuddin Nagar. However, papers of that medical treatment are not produced and the Medical Officer of that hospital is not examined. The medical evidence regarding medical examination of the accused is not favouring the prosecution. It is further argued that the doctor, who informed the incident to the police station is not examined by the prosecution. It is further argued that the place of the occurrence is not proved as different witnesses are pointing it out differently. According to the learned Advocate for the appellant, case of the prosecution is not reliable as witnesses who were sitting at the Aanganwari were not knowing anything about the incident and even PW 4 Ramdev has stated name of the accused as 'Awed. ' It is further argued that the evidence of the victim female child is contrary to her version found in her statement under Sec. 164 of the Cr.P.C. As against this, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and order.;


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