LAXMAN MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated the 17th of April, 2002, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 4, Samastipur, in Sessions Trial No. 99 of 1992. By the impugned judgment the solitary appellant Laxman Mahto was held guilty of committing offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and as also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - and in case of having defaulted to pay the fine, the appellant was to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

(2.) THE prosecution story emanates from the First Information Report lodged by P.W. 4 Samundari Devi on 10.07.1989. It was stated by P.W. 4 that she had gone out of her house into the shrubs for attending to the call of nature where the present appellant also came and caught her and dragged her inside a dilapidated house. The appellant thereafter administered to her 'Modak' (a preparation of 'Bhang' with some sweetner) and put her down on the ground and raped her. The appellant kept the prosecutrix with him for about two hours and thereafter left the place. The prosecutrix stated that she became inebriated and lost her senses as a result of which the appellant committed sexual intercourse with her. She was bleeding on account of the act and could not gain her consciousness for quite some time. She wandered around and she could reach a grove of guava trees at about 12 in the night when her father -in -law Sita Ram Sah (P.W. 2) and her Dewar Paras Sah (not examined) brought her to her house. It was stated that she narrated the whole story of being raped by the appellant to her family members after being administered stupefying substance. The prosecutrix further stated that a Panchayati was convened on Sunday, i.e., on 09.07.1989 and after people had advised her to file a case, she lodged the case.

(3.) EXCEPT the four witnesses the Investigating Officer and the doctor were not examined. Out of the four witnesses, P.W. 1 was a formal witness who proved the writings of the First Information Report Ext. 1. P.W. 2 Sita Ram Sah was the father -in -law of the prosecutrix P.W. 4 and he stated that her daughter -in -law went into the shrubs for attending to the call of nature and she did not return when he set out on search of her. P.W. 2 stated that he could find out the lady at about 12 in the night in the grove of guava trees and she was not in her full senses. She was brought to her house where she stated that this appellant Laxman Mahto had taken her inside the dilapidated house and raped her. The lady also stated to her family members including P.W. 2 that she was administered 'Modak' and she was raped. The fact was disclosed to the villagers who convened a Panchayati, but nothing came out of it and finally the report was lodged. P.W. 3 Birendra Sah was the husband of the prosecutrix and he supported the prosecution story by stating the same facts which were stated by her to her father -in -law P.W. 2. P.W. 4, the prosecutrix stated that she left her house at about 3 P.M. for attending to the call of nature and went into the shrubs near the house of one Mohan Prasad. The appellant came there and caught her to take her in that dilapidated house where he thrusted 'Modak' in her mouth and committed rape upon her in the manner as appears described by her in paragraph 2. The lady stated that after being fed with 'Modak' she became inebriated and the accused remained with her for about two hours whereafter he left her alone. The prosecutrix remained lying there and she could regain her consciousness around 12 P.M. and came into the guava orchard where she was found out by her family members, like, her Dewar Paras Sah and father -in -law P.W. 2 Sita Ram Sah who brought her to her house. P.W. 4 clearly stated that on account of being administered the stupefying 'Modak', she could not narrate the whole incident to her family members and could tell them about the incident only in the morning whereafter a Panchayati was convened and some fine was imposed upon the accused, but he refused to pay the same whereafter the case was lodged. During cross -examination P.W. 4 stated that the accused came near her after she had reached the place and took her inside the house which was located only 4 -5 houses away from her own house. P.W. 4 did not see as to when the appellant left her. P.W. 4 further stated that prior to that day there had never been a talk or any conversation between the appellant and herself and that the offence was committed inside the room which did not have any doors or door planks.