JINISH LAL SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR
LAWS(SC)-2002-12-2
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PATNA)
Decided on
December 20,2002
JINISH LAL SAH
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
CHITTARANJAN ROY VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-2011-2-59] [REFERRED TO]A VENKATACHARY VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2006-9-121] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR THAKUR VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2006-10-3] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH PIRAJI WAGHMARE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-1-108] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH PIRAJI WAGHMARE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-2-97] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRAN VS. STATE REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2012-7-92] [REFERRED TO]
SUKHBIR KABUL SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2005-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
NISHIT KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2011-9-23] [REFERRED TO]
S.SHIBU VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2012-9-154] [REFERRED TO]
K RAJESH VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2012-10-236] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL ALIAS MANGU VS. STATE OF CG [LAWS(CHH)-2006-8-36] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL VS. THE STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2003-2-124] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KISHORE RAUT VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2013-10-6] [REFERRED TO]
PARVEZ AHMED VS. STATE [LAWS(J&K)-2011-3-28] [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDER SINGH VS. STATE OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2010-12-54] [REFERRED TO]
VINU KARMASHI RADADIA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2006-9-37] [REFERRED TO]
BHARTIBEN VS. SUSHILABEN KANUBHAI TEVAR [LAWS(GJH)-2009-8-446] [REFERRED TO]
DILWAR HUSSAIN LASKAR VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2010-2-46] [REFERRED TO]
JOSEPH VS. S I OF POLICE MUNNAR [LAWS(KER)-2005-1-27] [REFERRED TO]
K C PETER VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2011-3-241] [REFERRED TO]
BHIRA SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2007-7-62] [REFERRED TO]
RAMAN KUMAR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2003-9-51] [REFERRED TO]
JABAR SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2004-5-45] [REFERRED TO]
Rajendra Patel VS. State of Orissa [LAWS(ORI)-2013-2-14] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH SHARMA VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2013-7-67] [REFERRED TO]
LALMALSAWMA VS. STATE OF MIZORAM [LAWS(GAU)-2014-7-34] [REFERRED TO]
AZIZ VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-5-265] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH SONI AND ORS. VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2014-5-180] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH KUMAR GUPTA VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(CHH)-2015-1-56] [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA SINGH BAGHEL VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2013-5-164] [REFERRED]
ANEEP KUMAR VS. STATE OFHIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2017-9-41] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2018-1-332] [REFERRED TO]
RANU KUSHWAHA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2018-10-147] [REFERRED TO]
SHIB SHANKAR KISKU VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2020-2-149] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Santosh Hegde, J. -
(1.)The appellant herein was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No. 182/89 for offences punishable under Ss. 366-A and 376 of the I. P. C. and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years on each of those counts but the sentences were directed to run concurrently. On appeal, the High Court of Patna has confirmed the said sentence. It is against that judgment and conviction the appellant is before us in this Criminal Appeal.
(2.)Briefly stated the prosecution case is that the appellant was giving tuition to the prosecutrix Geeta Kumari and her sister at their residence. It is stated that on 30th April, 1989 at about 7 p.m. the appellant came to their house and in the presence of the family members told Geeta Kumari P. W. 1 that he wont be giving tuition on that day and went away. Immediately, thereafter, it is stated that PW-1 left the house telling the members of the family that she was going to grand-fathers house to watch television. It is further stated that on the way she was met by the appellant and he on the pretext of taking her to a movie took her in his motor cycle towards Muzaffarpur. From Muzaffarpur, he took her in a train to Jasidih from where he took her to Devghar. The prosecution further states that there he forced PW-1 to marry him and made her sign certain papers. From Jasidih it is stated that the appellant and PW-1 left for Babadham on 8-5-89 and from there to Bajitpur on 9-5-89. During this stay, it is stated that appellant committed rape on PW-1. On 10-5-89, PW-1 was recovered from the house of the appellant by the police. After investigation, a case was registered against the appellant and he was charged as stated above and having been found guilty by the two Courts below the appellant has filed this appeal.
(3.)The factum of the recovery of PW-1 from the house of the appellant is not in dispute. While it is the case of the prosecution that it is the appellant who either by inducement or threat took away PW-1 from her house, the defence case is that PW-1 had eloped with somebody and her love affair having failed with the person with whom she eloped and she being scared to get back to the house had come to the house of the appellant who then had informed PW-6, the father of the girl about PW-1 coming to his house. The defence further states that after being annoyed and having found none else to blame her father has foisted a false case against the appellant. As noticed above, one of the charges of which the appellant has been found guilty is under Section 366-A which refers to procuration of a minor girl. To establish this charge, the prosecution has to prove that PW-1 was a minor on the date when she was taken away from her house. In regard to this fact, the prosecution relies on the evidence of PW-1 the girl herself, PW-6, her father and PW-10 the Doctor who examined her. So far as PW-1s evidence is concerned it is prima facie not acceptable when she says that she was only 14 years on the date when she was taken away from her fathers house. This evidence runs counter to all other material on record to which we shall refer presently.
(2.)Briefly stated the prosecution case is that the appellant was giving tuition to the prosecutrix Geeta Kumari and her sister at their residence. It is stated that on 30th April, 1989 at about 7 p.m. the appellant came to their house and in the presence of the family members told Geeta Kumari P. W. 1 that he wont be giving tuition on that day and went away. Immediately, thereafter, it is stated that PW-1 left the house telling the members of the family that she was going to grand-fathers house to watch television. It is further stated that on the way she was met by the appellant and he on the pretext of taking her to a movie took her in his motor cycle towards Muzaffarpur. From Muzaffarpur, he took her in a train to Jasidih from where he took her to Devghar. The prosecution further states that there he forced PW-1 to marry him and made her sign certain papers. From Jasidih it is stated that the appellant and PW-1 left for Babadham on 8-5-89 and from there to Bajitpur on 9-5-89. During this stay, it is stated that appellant committed rape on PW-1. On 10-5-89, PW-1 was recovered from the house of the appellant by the police. After investigation, a case was registered against the appellant and he was charged as stated above and having been found guilty by the two Courts below the appellant has filed this appeal.
(3.)The factum of the recovery of PW-1 from the house of the appellant is not in dispute. While it is the case of the prosecution that it is the appellant who either by inducement or threat took away PW-1 from her house, the defence case is that PW-1 had eloped with somebody and her love affair having failed with the person with whom she eloped and she being scared to get back to the house had come to the house of the appellant who then had informed PW-6, the father of the girl about PW-1 coming to his house. The defence further states that after being annoyed and having found none else to blame her father has foisted a false case against the appellant. As noticed above, one of the charges of which the appellant has been found guilty is under Section 366-A which refers to procuration of a minor girl. To establish this charge, the prosecution has to prove that PW-1 was a minor on the date when she was taken away from her house. In regard to this fact, the prosecution relies on the evidence of PW-1 the girl herself, PW-6, her father and PW-10 the Doctor who examined her. So far as PW-1s evidence is concerned it is prima facie not acceptable when she says that she was only 14 years on the date when she was taken away from her fathers house. This evidence runs counter to all other material on record to which we shall refer presently.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.