Full Judgment
Criminal Revision No. 43 of 2001 Against the
JUDGMENT / ORDER
dated 12.01.2001 passed in S.T. No. 203 of 2000 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bokaro Dulabati Devi … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Ganesh Ram … Opposite Parties ---- PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY For the Petitioner : Mr. R.C.P. Sah, Advocate For the State : Mr. S. K. Deo, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate ---- By Court: Heard Mr. R.C.P. Sah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. S. K. Deo, learned APP appearing for the State and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.
2.
2. This application is directed against the
JUDGMENT / ORDER
dated 12.01.2001 passed in S.T. No. 203 of 2000 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bokaro, whereby and whereunder, the opposite party No. 2 has been acquitted from the charges levelled against him u/s 376, 420 and 120B of the I.P.C.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being a member of Kabir Panth had indulged in sexual relationship with P.W.
4. It has further been submitted P.W. 4 had continuously been subjected to sexual assault and therefore it cannot be said that the F.I.R. was instituted after a delay of two years. It has further been submitted that P.W. 1 and 2 were so terrorized, they failed to support the prosecution case in the cross examination. It has further been submitted that the opposite party No. 2 after hypnotizing the petitioner (P.W.4) used to commit sexual assault upon her. It has further been submitted that there being consistent evidence on record in support of the case of the prosecution, the impugned judgment of acquittal, acquitting the opposite party No. 2 is liable to be set aside.
4. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 has stated that there is a considerable delay in instituting the F.I.R. and the petitioner indeed in order to force the opposite party No. 2 to part with the money which was allegedly given by the husband of the petitioner had instituted a false case. He further submits that neighbours of the informant being P.W. 1 and 2 has not supported the prosecution case 2. and P.W. 4 and 3 being interested witnesses being the informant and her husband, their version has rightly been disbelieved by the learned trial court.
5. It appears that an F.I.R. was instituted being Sector IV P.S. Case No. 13/2000 wherein it was alleged that the husband of the informant was a Telecom Manager in B.S.L. who had been an familiar terms with the opposite party No.
2. The accused persons including opposite party No. 2 had come to reside in the quarters of the victim and the entire expenses had been borne out by the husband of P.W. 4 (victim/ informant/ petitioner), which was opposed by her. When the informant was alone in her house, the opposite party No. 2 indulged in sexual intercourse with her on several occasions, but the same was not disclosed by the informant to her husband. It is further alleged that after January, 1998, the opposite party No. 2 was ousted from her house and thereafter the accused persons started threatening her. Thereafter after a lapse of 2 years, the matter was informed to the police. On the basis of the aforesaid, the F.I.R. was instituted. Consequent to the institution of the F.I.R., investigation culminated in submission of charge-sheet against the accused persons and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the court of sessions. The case was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bokaro, wherein charges u/s 376, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code have been framed and after conclusion of trial, the opposite party No. 2 was acquitted form the charges levelled against him.
6. It appears that the prosecution had examined as many as four witnesses in support of its case. P.W. 4, namely, Dulabati Devi is the victim/ informant herself. P.W. 1 and 2, namely, Urmila Devi and Umesh Pd. Singh respectively are neighbours of the informant and P.W. 3, namely, Subh Karan Prasad is the husband of P.W. 4 (informant). It is an admitted fact that there was a considerable delay in institution of the F.I.R., as almost 2 years had lapsed after the occurrence. In cross examination of P.W. 4, she disclosed that she was having suspicion that her husband used to spend money on opposite party No. 2, which she used to oppose and in fact she was pressurizing her husband (P.W.
3) to get the money returned from the accused, but the accused was not returning the same. The opposite party No. 2 was a class-IV employee under the 3. husband of the informant who was Telecom Manager in B.S.L. The opposite party No. 2 belongs to the School of Kabir Panth and he used to do Satsang which the husband of the informant had also joined. Continuous physical relationship with P.W. 4 was never disclosed immediately after the alleged occurrence had taken place. The delay in instituting the F.I.R. coupled with the fact that the the informant was opposing her husband with respect to the amount spending on the opposite party No. 2, indicates about false implication of the petitioner in the criminal case.
7. From the entire evidence of P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 as well as the entire factual scenario, one can get an impression that the opposite party No. 2 has been implicated at the instance of P.W. 3 and P.W. 3 only to get her husband returned back the money, which the informant had spent on opposite party No.
2. The delay in instituting the F.I.R. therefore has been fatal to the case of the prosecution and which fact has properly been appreciated by learned trial court before acquitting the opposite party No.
2. There being no reason to conclude otherwise, no interference in the impugned judgment/ order dated 12.01.2001 passed in S.T. No. 203 of 2000 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bokaro, whereby and whereunder, the opposite party No. 2 has been acquitted from the charges levelled against him u/s 376, 420 and 120B of the I.P.C. is necessitated and accordingly having found no merit in this application, the same is hereby dismissed. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 20th February, 2017 MK/N.A.F.R.