SUKHDEO BHUIYAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole appellant Sukhdeo Bhuiyan has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 26.4.1995 passed in ST. No. 13 of 1992 by the Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh whereby learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for seven years under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for one year under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The sentences are to run concurrently.

(2.) In short, the case of the prosecution is that on 17.7.91 the informant Kapur Devi, wife of Dina Mahto had gone to South West of the village Bonga to put her cattle there. When she was returning from there at about 1.30 to 2.00 p.m. and passing through a maize field, accused Sukhdeo Bhuiyan alias Bhairo Bhuiyan asked her to stop there. But, she did not stop on which accused Sukhdeo Bhuiyan caught her hand and thrashed her on the ground in the maize field and raised her saree and saya and committed rape on her and left her after half and hour when his semen was discharged. The accused also took away some ornaments of the informant. As it was raining, there was no one in the Badhar. The informant went to her house and narrated about the occurrence to her Gotni who told about it to her (informant) Bhainsur and the people of the village were informed about the occurrence. The Bhainsur of the informant and villagers caught the accused Sukhdeo Bhuiyan and brought him to Bonga village. Fardbeyan (Ext. 2) of the informant was recorded by A. Ali, Sub-Inspector of Police, Ichak P.S. in Bonga village on the same day (17.7.1991) at about 3.10 p.m. On the basis of the fardbeyan formal F.I.R. (Ext. 3) was drawn in this case. After investigation, police submitted charge-sheet under Sections 376 of 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the accused Sukhdeo Bhuiyan alias Bhairo Bhuiyan. The Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the case and committed it to the Court of Sessions for trial.

(3.) The defence of the accused, according to trend of the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, is that he has been falsely implication in this case.