LexSOHAN SINGH & ANR. versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A 8 [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S. C.R. 140 SOHAN SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF BIHAR (Criminal Appeal No. 971 of 2003) OCTOBER 9, 2009 [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: c s. 376(2)(g) - Gang rape - Conviction by trial court, confirmed by High Court - Pleas of accused regarding delay in lodging FIR, absence of injury on the person of the victim and their false implication due to enmity - HELD: Rightly rejected by both the courts below - There is consistency in 0 the evidence of three prosecution witnesses and there is no reason to doubt their evidence about commission of crime by accused - Conviction and sentence awarded by courts below confirmed. The accused-appellants were prosecuted for E commission of offence punishable u/s 376(2)(g) IPC on the allegation that at about 7 p.m. on 23. 7 .1983, when the prosecutrix (PW-3) alongwith her sister-in-law (PW-1) was returning home, both the accused ravished her. On the alarm raised by PW-1, PW-2, the husband of the F prosecutrix, reached there. He was assaulted by both the accused appellants with the butt of the pistol. FIR was lodged at about 8.30 a.m. the following day. The trial court, relying upon the evidence of the PWs 1 to 31 convicted both the accused of the offence charged, but G considering their age being 19 and 22 years, sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years. Their appeal was dismissed by the High Court. In the instant appeal filed by the accused, it was, inter H 140 .. - SOHAN SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF BIHAR 141 alia, contended for the appellants that the FIR was A delayed and no valid reasons were assigned for the delay; that no external or internal injuries were found on the person of the victim; that there was enmity between the two families which resulted in their false implications. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. A critical examination of the material evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 discloses that they B all have said in one voice with regard to the manner in which the offence was committed by the appellants. The c said evidence inspires confidence, more so, when the evidence was recorded almost after eight years from the date of commission of the offence, yet, there is great consistency therein. There is no reason to doubt the truthfulness of the evidence so deposed by the said three 0 witnesses. The conviction and sentence awarded by both the courts below is confirmed. [Para 12,13 and 18] [145- E-G; 146-G] 1.2. It cannot be said that there has been inordinate or unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. When FIR by a E Hindu lady is to be lodged with regard to commission of offence like rape, many questions would obviously crop ~ up for consideration before one finally decides to lodge FIR, and only after giving it a serious thought the prosecutrix must have decided to lodge the FIR. The F delay has been found by both the courts below to be properly explained. [Para 14] [145-H; 146-A-C] 1.3. Admittedly, the prosecutrix was already a married lady and, therefore, it was not necessary that some external or internal injuries should have been found· G ' on her person. No doubt, the doctor could not give any definite opinion with regard to commission of offence, but, it was not the case of the appellants that they had not committed the rape; rather they had taken a plea of consensual sex with the prosecutrix which has not been H 142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A believed by the two courts below. [Para 15 and 16) [146- 0-E] 1.4. Enmity between the two families would not lead to such a serious consequence of lodging FIR of 8 commission of gang rape by the appellants. [Para 17) [146-F] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 971 of 2003. From the Judgment & Order dated 17.12.2002 of the High C Court of Patna in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 360 of 1991. I Anup Banerjee, Rajeev Kumar, Deba Prasad Mukherjee for the Appellants. Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar, Manoj Mishra for the D Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DEEPAK VERMA, J. 1. Appellants, two in number, were charged and prosecuted for commission of offence under E Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') for having committed rape on prosecutrix at about 7.00 p.m. on 23rd July 1983 by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Sessions Trial No.94 of 1998 oecided on 26th September 1991, who found th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.