MITHILESH TIWARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction dated 19.8.2003 and order of sentence dated 23.8.2003 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan in Sessions Trial No. 216 of 2002 convicting the appellant Mithilesh Tiwary for the offence under Sec.376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 10 years with a fine of Rs.2000.00 and in default of payment of fine for a further period of 6 months R.I.

(2.) SHIV Kumari Devi, wife of Sudarshan Kuer of Village Madhopur, RS. Maharajganj, District - Siwan, gave fardbeyan on 3.1.2002 at 6 PM alleging therein that her daughter Chanda Kumari aged about 8 years who was dumb, on that day at 5 PM went to play by the side of her house. During the course of playing Mithilesh Tiwary aged about 25 years enticed her away into his house. She thought that he would have taken her to give something to eat. After 10 -15 minutes the informant went to the angan of Mithilesh Tiwary and heard sound of weeping and crying of her daughter. She entered into that room and found that Mithilesh Tiwary after undressing the pant of her daughter was committing rape upon her. She pushed away Mithilesh Tiwary from that position. Mithilesh Tiwary with a knife ran to assault her. In the meantime, the informant pulled her daughter, came out of the house and raised hulla. On hulla, villagers Raj Sigar Kuer, Ram Dayal Kuer, Chandeshwar Kuer and so many persons assembled there. She narrated the incident to them and thereupon the villagers caught Mithilesh Tiwary in his house and began to assault him. Mithilesh Tiwary confessed his guilt and asked for apology. Villagers asked to ring the police station. On information, police came and she gave the statement. A case under Sec.376 IPC was registered against the appellant Mithilesh Tiwary.

(3.) THE defence case is that no such occurrence took place and under the conspiracy with Babloo Kuer with whom the father of the appellant has got enmity and litigation, the appellant has falsely been implicated.