SUGAMBAR KAUR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole appellant in this appeal stands convicted and sentenced under Sections 376/448 IPC by the judgment and order passed by 3rd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, dated 30th May, 1990, in S.T. No. 312/87. The trial court having regard to the fact that the appellant was aged about 76 years on the date of conviction, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 376 IPC, but passed no separate sentence under Section 448 IPC. The appellant has preferred this appeal, praying that his conviction and sentence be set aside.

(2.) The prosecutrix who is also the informant in this case as well as the appellant are the residents of the same village, Bhatkhijri, police station, Lohardaga. It is the case of the prosecution that on 19.12.82, at about 7 a.m. while the informant was preparing 'Murhi' in her house and was alone, the appellant came there and forcibly dragged her inside the room and committed rape upon her. While the appellant was going out of the house after committing rape, the husband of the informant came and saw him going out. On enquiry from the prosecutrix, he came to know about the occurrence and thereafter he chased the appellant raising alarm, but the appellant could not be apprehended. A large number of persons gathered at the place of occurrence on hearing the alarm and went to the house of the appellant and asked him to come out. The appellant closed the door of his house and refused to come out. Thereafter, the informant along with her husband Damodar Sao, P.W. 1 went to the police station Lohardaga and lodged the report at 1.30 p.m., on the basis of which the case was registered against the appellant and after investigation, the appellant was put on trial before the 3rd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, it also appears from the record that at about 2 p.m. on the same day, the prosecutrix was sent for medical examination by the lady doctor, P.W. 6, who did not find any sign of rape.

(3.) The prosecution has examined a large number of witnesses and has relied upon the testimony of the prosecutrix is also the corroborative evidence of the villagers who had assembled on the alarm being raised by the husband and to whom the entire incident was narrated by the prosecutrix and her husband, P.W. 1. The prosecution has also examined witnesses who claimed to have seen the appellant running away from the house of the informant, immediately after the occurrence. The appellant, on the other hand, has denied the guilt and from the trend of cross-examination of the witnesses, his defence appears to be that he had been falsely implicated in this case on account of long standing enmity arising out of land disputes and other dispute. From the trend of cross-examination, it also appears that the defence faintly suggested that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and this was largely based on the admissions made by her in her deposition from which it appears that she was alone in her house on that date and she had offered no resistance to the appellant. The trial court has believed the prosecutrix and has held that her testimony stands corroborated by the testimony of other witnesses to whom the incident was narrated immediately after the occurrence and some of whom had seen the appellant running away from the house of the informant soon after the occurrence. He accordingly found the appellant guilty of rape as well as criminal tres-pass and sentenced him as noticed earlier.