JALDHAR MANDAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the order of conviction and sentence passed by Shri Muneshwar Sahoo, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda, in Sessions Case no - 98 of 1991/182 of 1998. The sole appellant was convicted under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, as per written report of Kumari Anita, the victim is that on 14.12.1989, at about 3 P.M., she was alone in her house. Her father is a teacher in Middle School, Lakhanpur in the district of Dumka. Her mother was already dead. Her neighbour, the accused appellant, was on visiting terms with her house. On the alleged date, that is, 14.12.1989, at 3 P.M. the accused entered her house and finding her alone committed rape upon her. Her younger sister was away to attend her school at that time. The informant failed to disclose this occurrence to any body on account of diffidence. Then again on 23.12.1989, in the afternoon, the accused entered her house on some pretext and repeated the act of unwilling sex with her. When the victim wanted to raise alarm and to disclose the offence to others, the accused promised to marry her. On the promise to marry the accused they started having regular sex with her resulting in her conception. At the time of reporting the occurrence, that is on 20.3.1990, she was carrying for the last 2 1/2 months. There was pressure up on the accused to marry the victim, but ultimately, he refused. Then the informant related (sic -narrated ?) the occurrence to her father who tried to prevail upon the accused to marry her at the intervention of the villagers, but the accused failed to abide by his promise. On 9.3.1990, she went to the house of Jaldhar Mandal of her own accord, but she was pushed out of his house by the accused and his family members. At the time of this incident of her pushing out from the house of the accused, Shashid -har Pandit, Sushil Pandit and Raghunath Pandit were present. On the above writ -

(3.) THE prosecution examined in all 12 witnesses. P.W.11 is doctor. He examined the victim on 20.3.1990. The doctor estimated the age of the victim on the date of examination as 14 years. The doctor stated in his evidence that the girl was carrying for the last eight weeks, that is the girl was pregnant for the last eight weeks. P.W.12 was the so called witness to support the alleged rape on the victim but he has stated that he had heard about the rape from others. P.W.13 is also hearsay witness who heard about the alleged rape on the victim from the victim 's father. P.W.14 is I.O. of the case whose evidence regarding alleged rape is nil and it is naturally so because he learnt about ail the alleged occurrence from the informant and her father. He visited the place of occurrence and examined some witnesses. P.W.10 was another witness. He was examined to support the alleged occurrence. He is uncle of the victim. He has spoken about pregnancy of Kumari Anita. There was a Panchaiti in the village and this witness was present at the time of Panchaiti. The accused and his father were present. The Panches directed the accused to give Rs.1600/ - as expenses for abortion of the victim. The accused accepted the decision of the Panches. The Panches sent the victim to the house of the accused, but the family members drove her out.