"No Parent Can Damage Reputation Of Their Daughter Regarding Her Chastity": Patna HC Upholds Conviction In Rape Case

The Patna High Court has upheld the conviction of the appellant for rape, while rejecting his contention that the allegations were falsely made to coerce him into marrying the victim.

To that end, the Bench of Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Jitendra Kumar observed that, "The claim of the appellant that he was falsely implicated for marriage but there is no substance in such claim because allegation has been made not only against the appellant but even against other two co-accused. Even, the claim of the appellant that there may be motive for extortion of money behind lodging the case against him, does not inspire confidence of this Court as per the evidence on record. No parent of any girl in our society can damage reputation of his/her daughter regarding her chastity. It has been seen in our society that even in case of commission of sexual assault, victims and their parents are hesitant/reluctant to go public to file a criminal case, because after such incident, life of the girl is almost spoiled."

The appellant filed an appeal seeking to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the 1st Additional Sessions-cum-Special Judge (POCSO Act).

The FIR was registered on August 4, 2015, based on the victim's report, accusing Bateshwar Yadav, Kinlal Yadav, and Deo Narayan @ Bhulla Yadav of offenses under Section 376 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The victim, aged 13-14, was a 9th-grade student. She reported that Bateshwar Yadav and the other accused raped her after threatening her with a knife. She informed her mother, who advised her to wait for her father. Upon learning she was pregnant, her father attempted a community resolution, which failed, leading to the FIR. At the time of reporting, the victim was 5-6 months pregnant.

The appellant claimed that he was falsely implicated for extortion of money and getting the victim married to him.

From examining the evidence on record, the High Court concluded that the appellant was guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376 (1) of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was acquitted under Section 3 of the POCSO Act, as the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the victim was under 18 years old. It was noted that no certificate was provided to confirm the victim's age, even though she was a Class 9 student. The Court stated, "Withholding documentary proof regarding the age of the victim gives rise to an adverse inference against the prosecution in regard to the age of the victim."

The Court also addressed the issue of victim compensation. It referred to the statutory provisions and case laws, emphasizing the duty of the court to pass a reasoned order regarding compensation to the victims as per Sections 357 and 357A of the CrPC, regardless of the trial's outcome.

It was found that the informant was the victim of the crime and entitled to compensation from the convict under Section 357 CrPC. Given the appellant's financial status, he was directed to pay Rs. 20,000 as compensation. The Court further recommended that the Bihar State Legal Services Authority pay additional compensation to the victim as per the Bihar Victim Compensation Scheme, 2014, within two months.

Cause Title: Deo Narayan Yadav @ Bhulla Yadav vs State of Bihar

Click here to read/download the Judgment