SHANKAR MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.

(2.) THE solitary appellant has preferred this appeal against his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ -, in default whereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, as awarded by learned Sessions Judge, Begusarai vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence respectively dated 20th & 23rd Day of July, 2002 in Sessions Case No. 169 of 1991 arising out of Sahebpur Kamal P.S. Case No. 103 of 1990.

(3.) AT the outset, it is relevant to mention that the appellant has tried his leveled best to obstruct smooth proceeding of the trial at 3 - 4 occasions and he misused the privilege of bail for substantial period. However, the prosecution could be able to examine altogether eight witnesses besides producing following documentary evidence: - (i) Ext.1 : - Injury Report. (ii) Ext.2 : - F.I.R. (iii) Ext.3 : - Case diary of S. Kamal 103/90. Out of the total eight prosecution witnesses examined, P.W.2, namely, Umesh Sao, P.W.3, namely, Sone Lal Sah and P.W.4, namely, Prabhu Sah, were declared hostile, out of whom, P.W.3 & P.W.4 could be examined three years after examination of P.W.1 & P.W.2. P.W.5, namely, Sita Ram Yadav, at whose field the offence was committed, has come to state about the condition of crops subsequent to incident. Of course, he has heard about the incident and is not an eye -witness, but whatever he has said about the physical features that remain intact. P.W.6, namely, Rajendra Sao, is the husband of the prosecutrix, not an eye -witness, got such information through his wife (P.W.1) and denied the suggestion of false implication at the instance of one Sitaram Yadav with whom the appellant is at inimical terms. P.W.7, namely, Dr. Baidehi Kumari, has examined the prosecutrix but found no injury, proved her report, Ext.1. P.W.8, namely, Bhuneshwar Yadav, is a formal witness, proved Exts.2 & 3.