TARA CHAND YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE solitary appellant, Tara Chand Yadav, was charged with committing an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code by the Presiding Officer, Additional Court -II, Katihar in Sessions Case No.239 of 1992/90 of 2001 and by the impugned judgment passed on 6th July, 2002, he was held guilty of committing the said offence. After being heard on sentence on the same day, the appellant was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. The appellant appeals to this Court against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed upon him.

(2.) P .W. 8, Ganga Devi, who happened to be the daughter of P.W.4, Pabia Devi, was sleeping inside one of the four rooms of the house when she felt that someone had touched her body, she woke up. She found that it was this appellant who was lying over her. The appellant, firstly, stuffed her mouth with her own sari so as to gagging her and after removing her clothes committed rape upon her. The lady struggled but could not get away from the clutches of the appellant and after completing the act, the appellant ran away from there. P.W. 8 stated that when the appellant was gone from there, she shouted and raised a hulla, upon which her mother, P.W.4, who was sleeping in the Verandah came and attempted to catch the appellant but he ran away. Villagers like Ranjit Kumar Jha (P.W.1), Suro Khalsa (i.e. Sardar Surendra Singh) (P.W.6) and Shambhu Sah (P.W.3) were attracted to the scene of occurrence, who had seen the appellant running away. It was stated by the prosecutrix that the appellant had entered inside the house by cutting the rope, which had been put to fasten the artificial plank to the door, which was otherwise door -less.

(3.) IT appears that the first information report of the case was drawn -up by the Officer In -charge of Police Station -Barari and the investigation was handed over to P.W.9, Sub Inspector of Police, Mohan Sharma, whereafter, he recorded the statement of P.W.8, who also produced a petti -cot, which was seized by preparing the seizure memo by the Officer In -charge of the Police Station. He thereafter, proceeded to the place of occurrence and inspected the same and also recorded the statement of the witnesses. He sent the prosecutrix, P.W. 8, for her medical examination and after concluding the investigation, sent the solitary appellant up for his trial, which ultimately ended in the impugned judgment.