BIRENDRA SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 26-4-1996 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi inSessions Trial No. 78 of 1991/10 of 1992 convicting the sole appellant under S. 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to 1 year R.I.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief, is that, the informant Chandrakala Kumari (P.W. 8) a minor girl aged about 7 years alleged in her fardbeyan dated 6-12-1990 before S.I. of Sahiyara P.S. that on this day she had gone to scrap grass in the Chaur of village. Just before sunset she kept the cut grass in a gunny bag and left for her village with the grass and sickle. In the meantime, accused-appellant, Birendra Sah aged about 20 years who was grazzing his She-Buffalo came near her and demanded sickle for preparing Paina. She gave him her sickle. It is further alleged that accused Birendra Sah pushed the grass bag from her head, and forcibly made her to lie on the ground and thereafter, committed rape. During the course of rape, he has pressed her neck. The grandmother of Chandrakala Kumari was cutting grass in the nearby field. On the cry of her grand-daughter, she rushed there. Thereafter, accused fled away with his she-buffalo. Other witnesses also arrived at the place of occurrence and saw the accused fleeing away. They were told about the occurrence of rape committed by the accused on the victim girl. At the time of occurrence, the father of the victim girl was at Punjab and her mother was in her Naihar. Information was sent to her mother. When she returned home the first information report was lodged in the police station. On the basis of which a case was registered and after completion of investigation charge-sheet submitted. The Investigating Officer sent the victim girl for medical examination and obtained the injury report. After commitment the trial proceeded in the Court below.

(3.) The case of the defence is that he has been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of local Mukhiya. No occurrence as alleged took place.