CASE BRIEF: TARKESHWAR SAHU v. STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND), (2006) 8 SCC 560

CASE NAME	Tarkeshwar Sahu v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand), (2006) 8 SCC 560
CITATION	AIRONLINE 2006 SC 383, (2006) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 556 2, 2006 SCC OnLine SC 1037
COURT	Supreme Court of India
BENCH	Hon’ble Justice S.B. Sinha and Justice Dalveer Bhandari
APPELLANT	Tarkeshwar Sahu
RESPONDENT	State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
DECIDED ON	29th September 2006

INTRODUCTION

There are grave claims of attempted sexual assault and kidnapping in the 2006 case of Tarkeshwar Sahu vs. the State of Bihar (now Jharkhand). Tarkeshwar Sahu, the accused, was charged with snatching the prosecutrix, a six-year-old girl, from her legal guardianship and attempting to rape her. The prosecution claims that Sahu tried to perpetrate the crime by luring the young girl to a remote location with the promise of biscuits. To prove the accused’s guilt, the prosecution used the victim’s and her parents’ testimonies as well as additional supporting evidence.

Using Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with attempted rape, the court found Sahu guilty at trial and sentenced him to seven years of hard labor. The seriousness of the charge and the evidence used in the trial led the trial court to find the defendant guilty. The Jharkhand High Court later upheld this conviction in spite of the defense’s claims that the evidence was insufficient and that the testimony was inconsistent.

When the case finally made it to the Supreme Court, the main question on the Court’s agenda was whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction under the applicable IPC sections. The Supreme Court was entrusted with examining the rulings of the lower courts, evaluating whether the accusations of attempted sexual assault and kidnapping were supported by reliable evidence, and deciding whether the penalty was suitable.

The legal approach to crimes involving kids, particularly sexual offenses, is highlighted in this case, which is noteworthy because it underscores the significance of appropriate investigation, supporting evidence, and the standards of proof necessary in such delicate cases. It also demonstrates the judiciary’s dedication to treating crimes against minors with the gravity they merit.

FACTS OF THE CASE

At around 1:30 a.m. on February 18, 1998, Tara Muni Kumari, who was around 12 years old, left her home to respond to the call of nature. She had been forcibly brought to the appellant’s Gumti at that time for engaging in unlawful sexual relations with him. The prosecutrix’s home was a short distance from the appellant’s aforementioned Gumti. After the prosecutrix allegedly raised the alarm, a number of people, including PW1 Ram Charan Baitha, the prosecutrix’s father and informant, Sahdeo Sahu PW2, Deonandan Sahu PW3, the village sarpanch, and Jewalal Sahu PW6, arrived from the nearby homes and apprehended the appellant before he could even try to ravish her. PW1 and other co-villagers arrived right away after hearing the prosecutrix’s cries, thus the appellant was unable to woo her. PW1 Ram Charan Baitha, the prosecutrix’s father, and other villagers who were witnesses in this case went to the police station right away after the incident and filed a first information report at 2:30 a.m. Within an hour of the incident, the FIR was filed. Every individual who visited the police station and subsequently showed up as a witness lived nearby and was an obvious witness to the event. The appellant did not enter a guilty plea and maintained his innocence despite being charged with an offense punishable under Sections 376/511 IPC. He claims that the informants Ram Charan Baitha PW1 and Gyan Kumar Sahu PW5 wrongly accused him of being involved in the current case.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether the accused is liable under Section 375 of IPC?
Whether the accused is liable under Section 376 of IPC?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Arguments from appellant

The defense contended that the victim’s statements were contradictory and untrustworthy. They proposed that the victim’s statements might have been impacted by outside forces, such as pressure from her parents or other people. The defense questioned the veracity of her account, arguing that it was challenging to distill the victim’s evidence into a coherent and understandable story.
The defense emphasized that any tangible evidence did not support the accusation of attempted rape. The victim’s body showed no evidence of assault or injuries, which the defense claimed called into question the prosecution’s case. The defense argued that the Section 376/511 charge was unsubstantiated in the absence of tangible proof of sexual assault.
The defense said that there was insufficient proof to establish the accused’s intention to commit rape. They proposed that the alleged “attempted rape” was a misreading of Sahu’s behavior and that he might have just taken the victim to a remote location for non-sexual purposes.
The defense questioned the chronology of events and drew attention to discrepancies in the prosecution witnesses’ testimony. They maintained that it was challenging to uphold the conviction because of the ambiguity these discrepancies caused regarding the case’s facts.

Arguments from respondent

The prosecution highlighted the six-year-old victim’s consistency and dependability in her testimony. The victim unequivocally said that Tarkeshwar Sahu, the accused, tried to sexually assault her after luring her to a remote location under the guise of offering her biscuits. Her story was deemed plausible by the prosecution despite her youth, especially given the circumstances surrounding it.
The victim’s parents and other witnesses provided testimony to the prosecution, confirming that the victim had vanished and was discovered in distress close to the scene of the occurrence. Corroborating information supporting the claims of kidnapping and attempted sexual assault included the victim’s emotional state and the length of time she had been gone.
Since the accused’s acts obviously fit the legal categories of attempted rape (Section 376/511) and kidnapping (Section 363) of the IPC, the prosecution contended that the charges were correctly applied. According to her testimony, the victim’s kidnapping and attempted sexual assault were in direct violation of the IPC.

JUDGMENT

The Court considered the arguments and supporting documentation put forth by each party. The main support for the prosecution’s case came from the victim, a six-year-old girl, who testified repeatedly that Tarkeshwar Sahu, the accused, had tried to sexually assault her after luring her to a remote location with biscuits. Despite the defense’s efforts to cast doubt on the victim’s testimony, the court determined that it was trustworthy and credible.

The Court dismissed the defense’s claim that there was no tangible proof to back up the attempted rape charge, pointing out that sexual assault can occasionally leave no physical scars, therefore the absence of obvious injuries did not always indicate that the crime did not take place. The Court further stressed that the accused’s actions unmistakably satisfied the legal definitions of attempted rape and kidnapping as stated in Sections 376/511 and 363 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Court determined that there was enough evidence to convict Tarkeshwar Sahu under the applicable IPC sections. The accused was sentenced to seven years of harsh imprisonment, and the trial court’s decision was maintained. The Court reaffirmed the need to hold people accountable for crimes against minors and dismissed the appeal. Thus, the conviction and punishment were upheld, highlighting how terrible the offense was.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court addressed the serious problems of attempted sexual assault and kidnapping of a youngster. After carefully examining the material, including the victim’s testimony, the Court concluded that it was trustworthy and consistent. In order to establish the chronology of events and the unlawful activities of the accused, the prosecution relied heavily on the victim’s narrative as well as supporting evidence from her parents and others. The charge was too serious to be refuted by the defense’s efforts to undermine the victim’s testimony and the absence of tangible proof.

The Court’s evaluation of the lack of bodily injuries was one of the case’s most important features. The defense contended that the accusation of attempted rape could not be proven in the absence of obvious evidence of sexual assault. But as the Court correctly noted, physical pain is not invariably the result of sexual assault, and the victim’s story was nevertheless credible even if there were no injuries. This is a crucial aspect in instances involving kids because it emphasizes how important it is to take into account all available evidence rather than just tangible proof.

The Court further underlined the seriousness of the offense, particularly when a kid is involved. The Court supported the lower court’s judgment to convict the accused and sentence them to seven years of harsh imprisonment because the accused’s actions plainly fell under Sections 376/511 (attempted rape) and 363 (kidnapping) of the Indian Penal Code.

In summary, the ruling in this case emphasizes how critical it is to shield minors from sexual offenses and how a fair legal system is essential to dealing with these crimes. By correctly upholding the conviction, the Court made sure that justice was done and that the gravity of crimes against minors was acknowledged and dealt with. The case also serves as a reminder of the legal rules that permit convictions even in the absence of tangible proof when the victim’s statement and supporting evidence are used.