Sweety Devi @ Sintu @ Prity Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 19 February, 2014

Patna High Court

Sweety Devi @ Sintu @ Prity Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 19 February, 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.305 of 2013
===========================================================

Sweety Devi @ Sintu @ Prity Devi W/O Anikat Kumar @ Tinku Resident Of Village/Mohalla Patel
Nagar, Nawa , P.S. Nawada, District Nawada.
.... .... Appellant/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s
=========================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Advocate.
Mr. Dr. Bipin Chandra, Advocate.
F o r t h e R e s p o n d e n t / s : M r . S . N . P r a s a d , A d v o c a t e .
=========================================================== CORAM:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI CAV JUDGMENT Date: 19 -02-2014
Sole appellant Sweety Devi @ Sintu @ Prity Devi has challenged the judgment of conviction dated
12.03.2013 and sentence dated 14.03.2013 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Nawada in
Sessions Trial No.79 of 2011/8 of 2011 whereby and whereunder she has been found guilty for an
offence punishable under Section 366A IPC and directed to undergo R.I. for seven years as well as
also fined of Rs.10,000/- in default thereof to undergo S.I. for four months, under Section 372 of the
IPC and has been directed to undergo R.I. for seven years, under Section 4 of the Immoral
Traffic(Prevention) Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years as well as under Section 5 of
the Immoral Traffic (Prevention)Act and sentence to undergo R.I. for seven years with a further
direction to run the sentences concurrently.
2. Sharawan Kumar (P.W.2) who happens to be father of victim Sanuja @ Beauty Kumari aged
about 14 years, filed written report on 30.09.2010 disclosing therein that his daughter Sanuja @
Beauty Kumari aged about 14 years had gone to purchase a copy on 26.09.2010 and since thereafter,
did not return. He continued in her search but could not trace out. On 26.09.2010 at 2 P.M. he had
received a call on his mobile whereby he was threatened and was directed to pay Rs.2 lacs otherwise
his daughter will be murdered. On his query, the line was disconnected. Anyhow, he traced out the
caller to be Kundan Kumar, son of Rambali Sao, village-Farha, P.S. Akbarpur, present address
Sonarpatti Road, Nawada, who happens to be tenant of Vikky Sao proprietor of Tutu Rajlaxmi, had
contacted him through his mobile no.8809161502, 7808165079 and 7808165073. He also disclosed
that so many girls have been employed by him out of whom one happens to be known as Sweety
Devi. He also disclosed that he was engaged in human trafficking. He further disclosed that your
daughter will be engaged therein. Today, that is on 30.09.2010 at about 10 A.M. while there were
large number of police constable as well as police officer present at Prajatantra Chawk, Nawada, he
had seen his daughter Sanuja @ Beauty Kumari along with two boys proceeding towards western
direction over which he informed the police personnel and on account thereof, his daughter along
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/97331204/

Sweety Devi @ Sintu @ Prity Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 19 February, 2014

with aforesaid two boys were apprehended. The boys have disclosed their identity as Rishabh
Bhagat and Ankit Kumar. His daughter further disclosed that while she was going on 26.09.2010 to
purchase copy, she met with Sitti Devi as well as Rajesh Kumar who allured her and then Rajesh
Kumar took her away to his residence situated at Mohalla Rajendra Nagar where they succeeded in
keeping her and on the same night Rajesh Kumar had committed rape upon her. During course
thereof, Ankit Kumar along with Sitti forbidden her and then on 28.09.2010 call their another
associate Arun Kumar of Kako Bigha who, on his car bearing registration no.BR-17C/8451 took
away his daughter to his house along with Sitti Devi and Rajesh Kumar. They were conspiring to sell
his daughter at Patna. He had further disclosed that his daughter anyhow succeeded in her escape
from Kako Bigha and from there she came to Nawada where she informed her two friends Ankit
Kumar and Rishabh who came and while she was in her way to the house, she has been
apprehended by the police.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, Nawada Town P.S.Case No.411 of 2010 was registered
under Section 366A, 372, 376, 34 of the IPC whereupon investigation commenced, while keeping the
investigation pending against others, chargesheet was submitted against Sitti Devi, Rajesh Kumar
and Ankit Kumar against whom cognizance was also taken and accordingly, the offence being
exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, put up on trial where from other got acquittal while
appellant has been convicted, the subject matter of instant appeal.
4. The defence case as is evident from mode of cross- examination as well as statement recorded
under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is of complete denial of occurrence. Plea at alibi has been taken on
behalf of appellant Sweety Devi @ Sintu @ Prity Devi as she was at her Naihar during the relevant
time and for that had examined three D.Ws. including herself.
5. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that so many flaws are apparent in the
prosecution case and on account thereof, the finding so recorded by the learned Trial Court is bad in
law as well as on facts. It has also been submitted that the investigation of this case has been
conducted in most perfunctory manner, so many loopholes have been left whereupon prosecution
case could not survive. Not only this, the place of occurrence has also not been properly inspected
and the objective finding of the I.O. with regard thereto, as appears from the evidence of I.O. P.W.5
is found full of absurdity. Apart from this, it is also apparent that there happens to be material
contradiction on account of development, embellishment in the prosecution case and to support the
same also referred relevant paras of P.W.5, the I.O.
6. Dealing with the evidence of material witnesses, it has been submitted that P.W.1, the mother,
P.W.2, the father(informant) are not an eye witness to the occurrence. They have deposed
whatsoever been stated by P.W.3, the victim. It has further been submitted that the evidence of
P.W.3 is not at all fit to be accepted because of the fact that the evidence of P.W.3 passes through so
many zigzag passage. During course of her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. as well as
during course of his evidence before the trial which happens to be the substantive evidence, there
happens to be vast changes visualizing therefrom on account thereof credibility of her evidence is
found breached. It has further been submitted that the conduct of P.W.3 by keeping silence for days
together is another circumstance which put suspicion over her natural conduct being victim of
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/97331204/

Sweety Devi @ Sintu @ Prity Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 19 February, 2014

circumstance because of the fact that from the evidence of P.W.5, the I.O. it is apparent that the
presence of victim P.W.3 at the house of Rajesh Kumar was bounded by so many houses including
having presence of other tenants in the same house and so, had there been forcible kidnapping of
the P.W.3, the victim must have raised alarm attracting the persons getting her rescue. Because of
the fact that she had herself disclosed that on the same day as well as on the following day or even
thereafter she had not objected rather she had herself engaged in domestic affair by cleaning the
room, doing all kind of natural work, belie the allegation. It has further been submitted that the
conduct of P.W.3 has got relevance in light of the fact that the doctor P.W.4 had estimated her aged
in between 16-18 years and having fluctuation of age of two years either side, the age of the victim
happens to be 18-20 years and being a major, no offence is found to be made out against the
appellant when victim has been found major as well as consenting party by her own conduct.
7. Apart from this, it has further been submitted that there happens to be delay of four days in
institution of the case. No explanation for the aforesaid delay has been furnished. It has further been
submitted that in spite of having threatening from one Kundan by whom demand of Rs.2,00000/was made as ransom, having the mobile number available even then neither case was registered nor
the investigation had gone in that aspect where under at least genuineness of version of informant
would have been tested, has got severe impact on the property of prosecution case in the
background of delay in institution of the case. Not only this, even having mobile in possession of
P.W.3, the victim and having Ankit and Rishav informed at her end, with whom she was
apprehended by the police, but not using the same during intervening period for informing parents
regarding her kidnapping, speaks otherwise. It has further been submitted that it was unfortunate
for the victim that she was apprehended otherwise she might have disappeared along with Rishabh
Bhagat and Ankit, only to shield the case having collapsed outrightly, purposely Ankit and Rishave
have not been examined as during course of evidence, P.W.3 suppressed the fact that she was having
with mobile.
8. It has further been submitted that there happens to be specific disclosure by the victim along with
P.W.1 and P.W.2 that at the time of kidnapping, she was student of class-X, then in that
circumstance, the I.O. should have inspected the relevant admission register to search out the date
of birth of victim so that the prosecution could have tendered before the court that the victim P.W.3
was aged below 18 years conclusively.
9. Furthermore, it has also been submitted that other tenants of the house wherein Rajesh was living
were not examined nor their identity were ascertained nay the location of the house has been
detailed by the I.O. so that the probability of P.W.3, the victim having confined against their will
would have exposed. That means to say had there been proper investigation on this score, the
conduct of the P.W.3, the victim would have ventured to suggest whether she was a consenting party
or not or whether there was any scope left for Rajesh Kumar to have the victim confined at that very
place without consented for.
10. Not only this, it has also been submitted that during course of acquittal of Rajesh Kumar as well
as Aniket, the prosecution evidence was disbelieved by the learned Lower Court then in that even,
the same sort of evidence would not have considered by the court to convict the appellant as the
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/97331204/

Sweety Devi @ Sintu @ Prity Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 19 February, 2014

evidence lacks credibility.

11. On the other hand, the learned Additional P.P. while sticking with the finding so recorded by the
learned Trial Court submitted that the prosecution case should not be overthrown on the basis of
non-examination of particular witness as well as on account of disbelieving the evidence with regard
to particular accused. Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not applicable and on account thereof, it
has become bounden duty of the court to scrutinize and appreciate the evidence abridging irrelevant
part in a way as separating the grain from chaff that means to say separating the truth from
falsehood.
12. From the judgment impugned, it is evident that the learned Trial Court had acted in same way
similar fashion whereunder the other co-accused stood acquitted while appellant has been
convicted. Therefore, the judgment impugned is fit to be confirmed.
13. The prosecution in order to substantiate its case examined altogether five P.Ws. out of whom
P.W.1 is Sunita Devi, mother of victim, P.W.2 Sharawan Kumar, father of victim, P.W.3 is victim
herself Sanuja @ Beauty Kumari, P.W.4 is Dr. Madhu Sinha and P.W.5 is Satyabir Singh.
Prosecution had also exhibited series of documents. In likewise manner, the defence had also
examined three D.Ws. including the appellant in terms of Section 315 of the Cr.P.C.
14. Before coming to ocular evidence first of all, the evidence of doctor is to be taken note of. The
doctor had examined victim on 02.10.2010 and found no sign of recent rape as well as absence of
external, internal injury on any part of body of victim. It is also evident therefrom that hymen was
absent and vagina admitted one finger. Therefore, the doctor had not supported the case of the
prosecution with regard to offence of rape. As per expert opinion, she had disclosed the age of victim
in between 16 to 18 years. The defence had cross-examined this P.W in the background of aforesaid
finding. Therefore, from the evidence of doctor, it is apparent that her age has been estimated in
between 16 to 18 years. Taking into account, the variation of two years either side the age of the
victim vary in between 18 to 20 years which will play an important role while deciding the case
moreover in absence of finding of rape.
15. Now coming to ocular evidence, first of all P.W.3, the victim is taken. She had disclosed her age
to be 16 years on the day of examination. She had stated that on 26.09.2010 at about 10.30 A.M. she
had gone to shop located in the same Mohalla to purchase copy. During midst thereof, she met with
Sweety Devi @ Sintu @ Prity Devi on whose query she had disclosed that she was going to purchase
copy. She also enquired regarding her education whereupon she disclosed that she was student of
Class-X. She then enquired her willingness relating to learning of computer for which she(victim)
asked for whether she would be admitted being student of class-X. Then Sweety Devi @ Sintu @
Prity Devi disclosed that so many girls are there. She should enquire herself. After knowing about
the place, she accompanied Sweety Devi @ Sintu @ Prity Devi. After covering some distance Sweety
Devi @ Sintu @ Prity Devi talked to somebody over her mobile and called him. One person came
whom she directed that as she (victim) was also willing to learn computer, therefore, she be met
with teacher. She accompanied with him. At that very time, she had not identified him. He had
taken her in a building where Sweety Devi @ Sintu @ Prity Devi was present since before. She
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/97331204/

Sweety Devi @ Sintu @ Prity Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 19 February, 2014

enquired from Sweety Devi @ Sintu @ Prity Devi regarding non- presence of girls for which she
directed her to sit inside as girls were expected to came. She sat for some time. After some time she
(Sweety Devi @ Sintu @ Prity Devi) locked the room. Then, thereafter she disclosed to Sweety Devi
@ Sintu @ Prity Devi that by now it is too late so she will go to her house. Sweety Devi @ Sintu @
Prity Devi disclosed that now you will have to live here. She began to weep over which Sweety Devi
@ Sintu @ Prity Devi slapped her and further disclosed that her parents will be kidnapped. Out of
fear, she kept mum. After some time, she felt headache over which she was given tablet by Sweety
Devi @ Sintu @ Prity Devi. After consuming tablet she found intoxicated. Thereafter she sat in a
room and then slept. Nothing wrong was done with him in the said night. On the following morning,
she had taken bath, she remained in that room on 26-27-28. Whenever she disclosed to go to her
house, she was assaulted and further disclosed that after murdering her, her dead body will be
thrown. In the morning of 28th Sweety Devi @ Sintu @ Prity Devi told to her Dewar to accompany
her so that she be carried at her house. Then he accompanied her. During midst of way they have
seen one Maruti occupied by one person who were later on identified as Arun Singh. Sweety Devi @
Sintu @ Prity Devi was also present. One more person was sitting whom she had not identified.
Sweety Devi @ Sintu @ Prity Devi directed her to sit inside Maruti. Thereafter, they have taken her
in a village known as Kako Bigha where she was kept in a building. She had seen Arun Singh making
payment to Sweety Devi @ Sintu @ Prity Devi over which Sweety Devi @ Sintu @ Prity Devi insisted
for more money. Sweety Devi @ Sintu @ Prity Devi also disclosed to remove her immediately.
Sweety Devi @ Sintu @ Prity Devi left. In the morning of 30th wife of Arun Singh said not to weep
as she was to be taken to Patna. Then thereafter she escaped therefrom, came at Biharsharif Bus
Stand from there she came at Nawada where she got down from the bus near court. While she was
going towards her house, she was witnessed by her Papa. She met with Ankit and Rishabh Bhagat
just after getting down from the bus. She had disclosed whole episode to them and then they joined
her in a way to her house but in midst of way, her Papa had seen. Her Papa had informed the police.
She had gone along with police. She was medically examined. Her statement was recorded under
Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. over which she had put her signature. She had identified Sweety Devi @
Sintu @ Prity Devi but failed to identifying remaining two that means to say Rajesh and Aniket.
During cross-examination, she had stated in para-14 that at the instance of police she had named
Rajesh and in likewise manner under para-15, she had stated that at the instance of police she had
named Aniket. In para-16, she had stated that she was knowing Sweety Devi @ Sintu @ Prity Devi
since 2-3 months earlier. In para- 19, she had stated that she had gone to Kako Bigha. She had not
named Arun at the instance of police. She had not met Arun Singh after the incident. She did not
know anybody else than Arun Singh of Kako Bigha. During her stay at Kako Bigha two female
members were present one Sweety Devi @ Sintu @ Prity Devi and other wife of Arun Singh. In
para-23, she had stated that Sweety Devi @ Sintu @ Prity Devi had taken her to two boys for rape
but none of them committed rape. Then there happens to be suggestion.
16. P.W.1 had stated that on 26.09.2010 at about 10.30-11 A.M. while she was at her house, her
daughter Saluja @ Beauty aged about 14 years gone to purchase copy but she had not returned.
Hectic search was made but they failed to locate her. At about 1.30 and 2 P.M. her husband received
call whereby demand of Rs.2,00000/- as ransom was advanced. The caller disclosed his name as
Kundan. On 30.09.2010 her daughter returned. She was seen by her husband at Prajatantra Chawk.
After being informed by her husband, she also gone to town police station where she met with
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/97331204/

Sweety Devi @ Sintu @ Prity Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 19 February, 2014

Saluja. On query, she disclosed that while she had gone to purchase copy, she met with Sweety Devi
@ Sintu @ Prity Devi, who, on the pretext of providing free compute learning, took her and during
midst thereof, she called Tinku @ Aniket who carried her to a place where none was present. Sweety
Devi @ Sintu @ Prity Devi locked the room. Her daughter insisted for releasing over which Sweety
Devi @ Sintu @ Prity Devi slapped her. Aniket had committed rape. Thereafter, Sweety Devi @
Sintu @ Prity Devi took her to Kako Bigha at the house of Arun Singh where Sweety Devi @ Sintu @
Prity Devi took money and thereafter Sweety Devi @ Sintu @ Prity Devi and Aniket returned back
leaving Saluja. On 30.09.2010, Saluja any how escaped therefrom. During cross-examination in
para-11, she had disclosed that she had deposed in a way what have been disclosed by Saluja. In
para-12, there happens to contradiction. She was not cross-examined on behalf of Sweety Devi @
Sintu @ Prity Devi.
17. P.W.2 is Sarvan Kumar, the informant who had also stated that on 26.09.2010 at about 10.30
A.M. her daughter gone to purchase copy and since thereafter, did not return. Even after hectic
search they could not be able to trace out. At about 1.30 P.M., he received call who demanded
Rs.2,00000/- as ransom. He further enquired and came to know that he was Kundan who called
him. After 3-4 days while he was standing at Prajatantra Chawk, he saw her daughter and
accordingly informed the police who was present there who apprehended Saluja @ Beauty along
with other accused and was taken to police station. On query Saluja @ Beauty had disclosed that
while she was going to market Sweety Devi @ Sintu @ Prity Devi and Aniket took her to Rajendra
Nager. Aniket had committed rape. Then thereafter Sweety Devi @ Sintu @ Prity Devi and Aniket
took her to Biharsharif on Maruti. Subsequent event she was not remembering. During
cross-examination, had stated at para-7 first of all Saluja @ Beauty had narrated the incidence to her
mother who accordingly informed him and that happens to be basis of his evidence. He had further
stated that after arrival of his daughter at his house, he enquired from her. Whatever been stated by
her, has been stated by him. In para-11, there happens to be contradiction. In para- 13, he had said
that he happens to be Barahai caste while wife happens to be Kaisth
18. P.W.5 is the investigating officer. He had stated that on 30.09.2010, he was ASP Nawada. On the
same day at about 2 P.M. he was present along with other police personnel at Prajantra Chawk to
maintain law and order. One Sarvan Kumar came and disclosed that his daughter Beauty Kumari,
aged about 14 years who was missing since 26.09.2010 is going towards western direction along
with two boys whereupon they have apprehended Beauty Kumari along with two boys. At that very
place written report was presented by the Sarvan Kumar on the basis of which case has been
registered. He took up investigation. He recorded further statement of informant, statement of
victim Sailja @ Beauty Kumari. He had also taken statement of Ankit and Rishav Kumar. Beauty
Kumari succeeded in her escape from the clutches of accused with the aid of Ankit Kumar and
Rishav Kumar. He also recorded statement of mother of Beauty Kumari. Thereafter, visited the
place of occurrence as pointed out by the victim which happens to be the house of Rajesh Kumar
where she was raped during course of confinement. It happens to be double storied building of
Chandrika Prasad wherein Rajesh was a tenant of upper floor where she was raped many times.
Then had shown the boundary as East Nitish Kumar, West Barren land, north Gali, south building
of Dwarika Yadav. Rajesh Kumar was apprehended. He had also gone to Kako Bigha. Arun Kumar
was absconding, statement of Bunty Kumar was recorded. He had also gone to the house of Tinku @
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/97331204/

Sweety Devi @ Sintu @ Prity Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 19 February, 2014

Aniket and arrested him and thereafter formal FIR was registered. Ankit Kumar, Bunty Paswan,
Beauty were examined under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Then thereafter Beauty Kumari was sent for
medical examination. During course of investigation, injury report was received. Arrested Sweety
Devi @ Sintu @ Prity Devi and thereafter chargesheet was submitted. During cross-examination at
para-10, he had stated that he had not recorded statement of landlord as well as other tenants of the
building where Rajesh was apprehended. He had not medically examined Rajesh Kumar. Then there
happens to be contradiction under para-13.
19. Three witnesses have been examined including that of appellant Sweety Devi @ Sintu @ Prity
Devi. D.W.1 is her sister, D.W.2 is the mother and D.W.3 is the appellant herself.
20. From the record, it transpires that neither the prosecution nor the defence were fair during
conduction of trial. Because of the fact that as per evidence, the victim was recovered on 30.09.2010
while her medical examination was conducted on 02.10.2010 having no explanation at the end of
prosecution where she was during the intervening period and what was the reason behind
non-examination of victim during intervening period. In likewise manner, it is also apparent that
the victim was examined under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. on 03.10.2010 but Magistrate has not
been examined to get the aforesaid statement exhibit of the record.
21. It is also apparent from the record that the victim had left out major portion of evidence, more
particularly, relating to conduct of other co-accused(since acquitted) at least Rajesh took away to
Rajendra Nagar where he committed rape on her as well as she declined to identify them in court.
Though P.Ws.1 and 2 her parents have disclosed commission of rape by Aniket but P.W.3 the victim
did not support the same. It is also evident that defence could not care to get her confronted with the
164 Cr.P.C. statement on major issue which was visualizing therefrom axing upon prosecution case.
In likewise manner, the prosecution had not care to examine Ankit and Rishav. At this moment one
could perceive that P.W.3 victim had not identified Rajesh in court, and it was Rajesh who took
away victim to Rajendra Nagar where she was confined for three days, then how victim came at
Rajendra Nagar and with whom, is the matter of surprise because she had specifically denied
presence of appellant in between.
22. The conduct of victim appears to be more gritty. From the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, it is
evident that victim was raped by Aniket, while from written report, it is apparent that she was raped
by Rajesh. In like wise manner, the FIR suggest that victim had called Aniket and Rishav at bus
stand by doing phone call but victim had disclosed the same under evidence. In the aforesaid
background non- examination of Aniket and Rishav should be considered another dent in the
prosecution case.
23. In likewise manner, presence of victim at Rajendra Nagar for three consecutive days right from
kidnapping without any sort of resistance at the end of victim is another circumstance. The house, as
per evidence of P.W.5, the I.O. was rented one having presence of so many tenants including the
landlord apart from neighbours in its surroundings and had there been alarm at the end of victim,
there was no question for further detention by the appellant. Furthermore, from P.W.2 it is evident
that his daughter, victim failed to disclose how she managed to came out from Kako Bigha.
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/97331204/

Sweety Devi @ Sintu @ Prity Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 19 February, 2014

24. In likewise manner, there happens to be the conduct of P.W.1 as well as P.W.2 who, in spite of
disappearance of victim as well as having demand of Rs.2,00000/- as ransom by one Kundan for
release of victim, did not inform the police who at least had taken proper steps and would have
intercepted the victim. Keeping four days till victim, was seen at Prajatantra Chowk in the company
of two, Ankit and Rishav speaks a lot with regard to internal family atmosphere, as well as conduct
of whole family suggesting that they were not at all perturbed with disappearance of victim Saluja.
Not only two P.W.1 and P.W.2 failed to show their mobile phone to I/O through which ransom was
demanded as well as having the call detailed would have confirmed the genuineness of version
25. In likewise manner, from the evidence of investigating officer it is evident that he had conducted
the investigation in most perfunctory manner in the background of the fact that at least he should
have interrogated the land lord, other tenants, neighbours of the house where Rajesh was
apprehended as well as where the victim stayed for three days, to trace out authenticity of the
version of the victim regarding her presence at that very place from 26 to 29. The I.O. should have
also investigated over the point how, having no mobile or source of transmission of information,
Ankit and Rishav got victim in their company. In likewise manner, the victim should have been
searched out whether any cash was along with her because of the fact that she had proceeded from
her house on 26th on the pretext of purchasing copy as well as travelling on Bus from Biharsharif to
Nawada. The cumulative effect, in the background of aforesaid infirmities as well as improbability in
the prosecution version coupled with conduct of the victim cast doubt over genuineness as well as
authenticity of the prosecution version.
26. Now coming to age of victim, as stated above, the I.O. had failed to trace out her age from the
school in which victim was studying which could have at least divulged conclusively being less than
18 years or more than 18 years or 18 years on the alleged date of occurrence. Moreover, from the
medical evidence, her age has been estimated in between 16 to 18 years and having variance of two
years, her age fell in between 18 to 20 years and on account thereof, victim is found major. In the
background of infirmities persisting in the prosecution case, in consonance with the conduct of the
victim and lapses during course of conduction of investigation and its cumulative effect did not
justify the verdict rendered by the trial court. Consequent thereupon, judgment of conviction and
sentence pronounced by the learned Trial Court is set aside. Appeal is allowed. Appellant is under
custody, hence directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.
(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J) Patna High Court, Dated 19th February, 2014, Brajesh Kumar, AFR |__|
U |__| T

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/97331204/