The court found The case of the informant is a false one. There is no material to say that the witness is not reliable. The testimony given by the victim is shaky in nature and is quite contradicting as well. The Hon’ble High Court of Patna before Justice Mr. Ahsanuddin Amanullah in the matter Srilal Yadav v. State of Bihar[Criminal Appeal (Sj) No.569 of 2020].
The learned preliminary Judge cleared the appealing party of the charges under Sections 376(D) and 504 IPC. As per protest-based F.I.R., the minor girl of the source matured around 14 years who was an understudy of class VIII in School gone to go to the call of nature at 7 PM.
Around then, the litigant and other six named who is father and kin of the appealing party strongly grabbed her with a purpose to violate her. At the point when the complainant got some information about the whereabouts of his girl, they began the disparaging and serious attack. The complainant went to the police headquarters, yet the police would not enlist the case.
After examination, the police submitted a charge sheet against the litigant, and examination against others was continued forthcoming. During preliminary, indictment was analyzed by and large seven observers. All are observers of the event. The exploring official or the specialist who had restoratively analyzed the casualty were not created under the watchful eye of the Court nor any clinical proof is there.
learned insight for the appealing party presents that the declaration of the prosecutrix would uncover that she is certainly not a “real observer” as she isn’t predictable with her previous assertion. Additionally, her declaration sees as faced by the proof of other arraignment witnesses, particularly PW-2, PW-5, and PW-7 her mom.
taken in Additional Public Prosecutor fights that the casualty of the wrongdoing can’t be distrusted and there is no bar for recording conviction based on the sole declaration of the observer of the event. Learned insight battles that, truth be told, it is an instance of sole proof of the prosecutrix who was abducted and she has reliably upheld that she was removed from India by the litigant. On the date of the event, she was a minor. Henceforth conviction doesn’t need impedance.
The High Court Of Patna held,” Considering the fact that the prosecution evidence on the record contradicts the testimony of the victim whose evidence appears to be shaky one, hence the appellant deserves the benefit of the doubt. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the appellant are hereby set aside and this appeal is allowed.”
Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish