KHURSHID MAIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the counsel for the appellants and the State.

(2.) THE appellant no. 1 has been convicted under Section 376 of the Penal Code and appellant no. 2 has been convicted under Section 376/34 of the Penal Code and both have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years.

(3.) THE trial Court on consideration of the evidence of the victim who had supported the prosecution case about rape and, further, take into consideration the evidence of the mother of the victim, P.W. 5 that he reported the matter to the elder who suggested that the matter concerns with the village and they tried to suppress. However, when, after some times the victim was found to be pregnant and then the village Panchayat convened and the Panchayat took a decision that Saghir shall marry with Jumrati, the victim, and Khurshid will pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and the party accepted the decision of the village Panchayati and date was arranged for payment of compensation and marriage, but, on the date the accused refused and, hence, the case. Taking into consideration the evidence of P.W. 5 the victim, her mother and, further, the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6, who have supported the prosecution case bout the convening of the Panchayati on the report of Jumrati and though found some contradiction in between the statement of the victim before Magistrate and in Court and contradiction between the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 7 and, further take into consideration that the date of occurrence has not been specifically mentioned, but, taking into consideration that the victim was rustic and physically and mentally handicapped held that she is not expected to narrate these things in fine detail and, further, held that the order of conviction and sentence can maintain on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix when her evidence inspire confidence and no corroboration is required and held that the birth of a female child itself is sufficient corroboration of rape because it is the only the mother who can say who is the father of the child, hence, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the appellants, as stated above.