JEETU MANJHI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Sections 374(2) and 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure calling in question the tenability and legality of a judgment dated 13.12.2011 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge-V, Danapur in Sessions Trial No. 10 of 1999/29 of 2011 convicting the appellant for an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that on the basis of information received from one Janakiya Devi, PW 4, the F.I.R. in question was registered by the authorities of Police Station Bikram, District Patna, on 08.03.2008 and according to the complaint made by Janakiya Devi, on 04.03.2008 it is said that she had gone out for doing her work as a labourer. When she returned to her house at 7.00 in the evening she found that her daughter, the prosecutrix, was not available in the house. She was a small child aged between 4 to 6 years and she immediately saw that the appellant accused Jeetu Manjhi brought back her daughter on his bicycle, dropped her in the house and went away. It is stated that the daughter (prosecutrix) who is also a dumb and mute child, started weeping and by indications pointed out to her mother that the appellant Jeetu Manjhi has committed rape on her. She found blood-stain and marks of injury on her body and dress and when the prosecutrix girl started crying, the informant informed the villagers, who in turn, advised her that looking into the age of the child she should settle the matter in the village Panchayat. It is said that due to the adamant attitude of the accused and his family members, no settlement could have arrived at Panchayat and, therefore, she lodged the report on 08.03.2008 based on which the prosecution was initiated.

(3.) On behalf of the prosecution, six witnesses were examined, namely, PW 1 Sukhiya Devi, PW 2 Bajrangi, PW 3 Ramsakal Rai - the Investigating Officer, PW 4 the informant and mother of the prosecutrix Janakiya Devi. The prosecutrix girl was examined as PW 5, and the doctor who examined the prosecutrix was examined as PW 6. Various documents, namely, FIR Ext.1, seizure list Ext.2, and the medical examination report and supplementary medical examination report Exts.3/1 and 3/2 were also marked and based on the statements of the witnesses the conviction has been ordered and the appellant sentenced to undergo 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.