SUDHU SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant suffered conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code on being tried by 5. Sessions Judge, Katihar in Sessions Case No. 43 of 1989 and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years on that count.

(2.) THE facts of the case are tell a tale. While Mina Kumari, the prosecutrix, was alone in her house in the month of Asharh of the year 1988, the appellant sneaked in her house and asked to accompany him to his house for work. Considering his version to be true, it was alleged that when 10. she went to the house of the appellant, firstly he allured her for sexual intercourse. However, when she did not concur to the proposal of the appellant, she being virgin, the appellant wielding dagger coercing her, violated her person. It was alleged that she was vanished even in successive nights and after she expressed her apprehension of getting conceived, he assured her for miscarriage. Even when wife of the appellant came to her house, the appellant, it is alleged continued to 15. commit sexual intercourse on her taking her, in the field and with these narrations of the prosecutrix which she rendered after four months of the incident, a police case was registered at Katihar police station and investigation commenced. During pendency of the investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded statement of the witnesses got the prosecutrix clinically examined by a doctor and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge -sheet before the court and the appellant 20. being committed to the Court of Sessions was put on trial. At trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses and the trial Court placing implicit reliance on the testimony of them, rendered verdict of guilt, convicting the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him in the manner stated above.

(3.) THE finding recorded by the trial Court was impeached by the learned counsel appearing for the 45. appellant on variety of reasonings and it is sought to be urged that since prosecutrix had not taken recourse to the public authority, before lapses of four months, the entire prosecution case has to be discarded on this count alone. The contentions were raised that considering estimation of age of the prosecutrix by the doctor, she being major was free to exercise her discretion and once this logic is accepted that she gave her accompany to the appellant on her own volition, the alleged act committed by the appellant would not attract the mischief of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. My attention has also been drawn by the learned counsel for the appellant to some narrations made