KAILASH RAVIDASH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11th February, 2013 passed in Sessions Trial No. 183 of 2012 by the learned Adhoc Additional District and Sessions Judge-I, Nalanda at Biharsharif, whereby he has convicted the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo RI for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year.

(2.) THE short facts of the case is that one Nageshwari Devi (P.W. 4) gave her fardbeyan on 27th January, 2012, at about 3 p.m. alleging therein inter alia that on the same day, at about 10 a.m., she had gone to Asthawan Market for purchasing some articles and during that period, her daughter R aged about 15 years, was alone in the house. When she came to Mahamadpur Market then, one co-villager told her that her daughter R has been raped whereafter, she reached to her house and found that a huge crowd had assembled near her house. On inquiry, she came to know from her daughter that while she had gone to market, at about 12.30 p.m., the appellant, a co-villager, came on the 3rd floor of the house and thrashed her on the ground. He tied her hands, closed her mouth and thereafter, ravished her. It has further been stated in the fardbeyan that while appellant was committing rape upon the daughter of the informant, her aunts, namely, Renu Devi and Munni Devi came and rescued her. In the meantime, the appellant pushed them and fled away.

(3.) IN course of trial, altogether seven witnesses were examined in order to prove the charge. The defence has not examined any witness. However, in the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant has pleaded his innocence. The victim, R, has been examined as P.W. 2 in the case. She stated that on the alleged date of occurrence, she was humiliated. However, the miscreant had covered his face and she could not identify him. She stated that her statement was recorded by police. However, immediately thereafter she retracted and told that her statement was never recorded by the police. She has been declared hostile by the prosecution. The prosecution has cross-examined her. In cross- examination, she has clearly stated that she had never told the police that she was raped.