Sandeep Kumar Ojha v. State Of Bihar And ANR

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.807 of 2016 (2) dt.23-11-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Appeal (DB) No.807 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -212 Year- 2011 Thana -PANCHRUKHI District- SIWAN ======================================================

1. Sandeep Kumar Ojha son of Sudhakar Ojha Resident of VillageGamhariya, P.S.- Pachrukhi, District- Siwan.... .... Appellant

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Abhishek Kumar Ojha @ Sonu Son of Nagendra Ojha Resident of Village- Gamhariya, P.S.- Pachrukhi, District- Siwan... .... Respondent ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rajendra Kumar Dubey, Advocate Mr. Arbind Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sri Ajay Mishra, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH) 23-11-2016 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP for the State.

This is an appeal against acquittal. The sole respondent in this appeal was charged for an offence punishable under Sections 366A,/34, 376/34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code has been acquitted vide judgment dated 29th June, 2016 passed in Sessions Trial No. 432 of 2012 by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the victim girl had made statement merely stating that she had been kidnapped and ravished by other including the private respondent.

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.807 of 2016 (2) dt.23-11-2016 We have gone through the judgment and seeing the deposition of the prosecutrix, we find that the learned counsel is not correct. So far as the story of kidnapping is concerned, the court has rightly disbelieved because the sequence of event is the girl was sleeping with the parents at night in her house, the allegation that the accused persons came and carried her out has not been believed and cannot be believed when she was sleeping with her parents. So far as the rape is concerned, she, in her examination-in-chief, does not name the private respondent. In the cross-examination, there is nothing against the private respondent. She is then, recalled for re-examination-in-chief (probably in terms of Section 138 of Evidence Act). Here, she named the private respondent but in the same breath states that he had not ravished her. Therefore, when the girl herself says that she was not ravished by the sole private respondent, we see no reason to entertain this appeal against acquittal.

This appeal is accordingly, dismissed.

(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J) (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T