RAM ASHRAY SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 4th of May, 1996 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jehanabad in Sessions trial No. 10 of 1995 convicting the appellant Ram Ashraya Singh under Secs. 376 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the (I.P.C.) and he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and one year respectively. His sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Appellant Amarik Singh has been convicted under Sec. 225 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that accused Ram Ashraya Singh committed lurking house trespass into the house of the informant situated at village Sewabigha, P.S. Kurtha and committed rape on Shakila Khatoon, the wife of the informant in the night of 9.6.1994. In the fardbeyan (Ext. 2) Sharfuddin Shall, the husband of Shakila Khatoon (P.W. -2) further alleged that on hulla of his wife he rushed inside the house and caught hold of the accused -appellant Ram Ashraya Singh whom he had seen committing rape on his wife. On hulla the uncle of accused Ram Ashraya Singh, namely, Amarik Singh arrived at the place of occurrence and forcibly rescued accused Ram Ashraya Singh. Several witnesses had arrived at the place of occurrence and had seen the appellant Ram Ashraya Singh being caught by the informant and other persons. There was a talk of panchayati in the village, therefore, F.I.R. could not be lodged on the next day of the occurrence but panchayati failed and thereafter on 11.6.1994 the ford bey an was lodged in the police station, on the basis of which formal F.I.R. (Ext. 3) was drawn up and after investigation charge -sheet submitted against both the accused -persons and after commitment the trial proceeded in the Court below.

(3.) THE case of the defence is that they have been falsely implicated in the case at the instance of P.W. -7 (Narendra Prasad) who has earlier duped accused Rama Ashraya Singh of a sum of Rs. 12,000 on the false promise of providing him employment and when he failed to provide any job he made demand of his money several times and being annoyed, he falsely implicated him and his uncle in this case.