SHOBHA BIND Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has preferred this appeal for setting aside his conviction under Section 376 I.P.C. and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had found the appellant guilty of having raped Parni Kumari on 26th January, 1991 in village Baijnath within Ramgarh police station of Rohtas district, and for which he was convicted and sentenced;

(2.) Nithohar Bind (PW 7) the father of Parni Kumari aged 7 years lodged an F.I.R. (Ext. 3) that his daughter had been to case herself on 26.1.1991 at about 6 p.m. to the north of the village. She had gone alone. About an hour later she returned home weeping. On enquiry she told her father that the appellant gave her a "Chawanni" and thereafter took her to his house near the pond. She further added that inside the house he made her lie on the ground and after removing her Pant raped her. Thereafter after making her wear her pant he asked her not to divulge this to any one. The informant found the pant of her daughter soaked with blood and blood oozing from her private part. The informant also produced the blood stained Pant and "Chawanni" at the police station. After investigation in course of which Parni Kumari (PW 5) was examined by Dr. Kiran Singh (PW 8) on 27.1.1991 whose report is Ext. 2 and after inspection of the P.O. by Sri Narendra Mohan Sinha (PW 10) the Officer-in-Charge who had earlier recorded the F.I.R. the police charge-sheet the appellant under Section 376 I.P.C. The appellant in his examination under Section 313, Cr. P.C. denied the prosecution case and described it as false. The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not accept the defence plea of innocence and after holding the prosecution case as proved convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner indicated above.

(3.) Sri Kamal Nayan Choubey learned Counsel appearing for the appellant argued that there was no legal and satisfactory evidence on the record to prove the charge against the appellant and that his conviction cannot be sustained. The contention was controverted by Sri Dashrath Mehta learned Counsel appearing for the State who took the position that there was legal evidence of a satisfactory character to prove the guilt of the appellant and support the conviction and sentence passed against him.