"A Case of Disputed Justice: Analysis of Barun Kumar Mandal v. State of Bihar"




Introduction

The case of Barun Kumar Mandal v. State of Bihar is a complex criminal appeal wherein the appellant, Barun Kumar Mandal, also known as Biro Mandal or Barun Mandal, challenges his conviction and sentencing under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case was decided by the High Court of Patna, presided over by Honourable Mr. Justice A. M. Badar and Honourable Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma on July 12, 2022. This judgment, which involves allegations of kidnapping and sexual assault of a minor, provides insights into the legal interpretation of evidence, particularly concerning the assessment of testimonies and medical reports.

Background of the Case

The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, IV, Naugachia, in Sessions Trial No. 919 of 2010, for the offense punishable under Section 366A of the IPC and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years along with a fine of Rs. 5,000, with a default sentence of an additional three months. The incident dates back to June 2, 2010, when a minor girl aged about 13 years was allegedly kidnapped by the accused along with other co-accused while she was out for easing herself.

The prosecution alleged that the minor was kidnapped and taken to the Shiv Mandir of Thakurbari, Purnea, where she was forcibly married to the accused. She was then kept in a Dharmshala for 10 to 12 days, during which the accused allegedly had sexual intercourse with her.

Prosecution’s Case

The prosecution presented eight witnesses, including the victim herself (PW1), co-villager Anju Devi (PW2), the victim’s mother (PW3), her uncle (PW4), her father (PW5), her aunt (PW6), the Investigating Officer (PW7), and the Medical Officer (PW8). The testimonies emphasized the minor’s kidnapping, forced marriage, and subsequent sexual assault.

The victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC by a Magistrate was considered crucial. The medical examination of the victim was conducted by Dr. Sushila Choudhary (PW8) on June 16, 2010. However, the medical report did not indicate signs of sexual intercourse, which became a major point of contention.

Defense’s Case

The accused completely denied the allegations, asserting that the charges were fabricated. He did not present any defense witnesses but relied on cross-examination to establish discrepancies in the prosecution’s narrative.

Trial Court’s Judgment

The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 366A but acquitted him of the offense under Section 376 (rape) of the IPC. The acquittal was primarily based on the absence of medical evidence supporting the victim’s claim of sexual intercourse, despite her consistent testimony regarding the accused’s actions during her captivity.

Appeal and High Court’s Analysis

The High Court examined the appeal by re-evaluating the evidence presented during the trial. The appellant contended that the trial court erred in convicting him under Section 366A and in disregarding the inconsistencies in the testimonies. The prosecution, on the other hand, argued that the trial court erred in acquitting the accused of rape, considering the victim’s testimony.

The High Court acknowledged that the prosecution had successfully proven the kidnapping of a minor with intent to seduce or force her into illicit intercourse, satisfying the requirements of Section 366A of the IPC. The court also noted that the minor’s consent, if any, was irrelevant due to her age.

Medical Evidence and Its Implications

The medical examination conducted by Dr. Sushila Choudhary (PW8) did not reveal any signs of sexual intercourse or injury. The High Court concurred with the trial court’s reasoning that the absence of medical evidence weakens the prosecution’s case concerning the charge under Section 376.

Legal Precedents Cited

The judgment references the Supreme Court’s rulings in:

  • N. Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) - Emphasizing the principle that a trial court’s “possible view” should not be interfered with if reasonably formed.
  • Murugesan & Others v. State through Inspector of Police (2013) - Discussing the distinction between “possible view” and “erroneous view.”
  • Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2007) - Highlighting the appellate court’s power to reappreciate evidence and arrive at an independent conclusion.

Conclusion

The High Court upheld the conviction under Section 366A, agreeing with the trial court’s plausible interpretation of evidence. It also upheld the acquittal under Section 376, emphasizing that the medical evidence did not support the allegations of sexual assault. The judgment reiterates the principle that an appellate court should not interfere with a lower court’s decision unless it is proven to be manifestly incorrect.

The case serves as a crucial reference point for understanding the legal standards of evidence evaluation in cases involving minors, especially where medical evidence does not align with witness testimonies.

Read the full judgement Below;