SUNNA MURMU Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging his conviction ordered by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge-3, Purnea vide judgment dated 25th/28th of February, 2014, passed in Sessions Trial No. 1038 of 2009, convicting the appellant to 10 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 5000/- holding him guilty of an offence under Section 376 of I.P.C., this appeal has been filed under Sections 374(2) and 389 Cr.P.C.

(2.) Facts, in brief, indicate that a report was lodged by the prosecutrix herself, who was examined as P.W.3 before the trial court to the effect that on 10th of March, 2009, at about 3:00 p.m., she along with her younger sister X, P.W.1, was returning from Bahiyar after cutting grass and when they reached a place near the Maize field of Sanjay Hansda, the accused herein namely Sunna Murmu along with co-accused in the trial namely Tallu Murmu caught hold of her, brought her into the Maize field, put her down on the ground and the appellant committed rape on her. On her making a hue and cry, witnesses arrived there. It is stated that the co-accused Tallu Murmu assaulted her sister (X) with fists and slaps. It is stated that on the commotion being made, P.W.2 Chandan Kumari and one Suryamani Kumari, who were also cutting grass nearby, came there. It is stated that Magan Singh and Sanjit Muni also arrived there. On the basis of the said report, the prosecution was launched and the appellant having been convicted, this appeal.

(3.) In support of the case, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 (X), the sister of the prosecutrix, P.W.2 Chandan Kumari, who is said to have come to the spot on hearing the commotion. The prosecutrix and informant has been examined as P.W.3, P.W.4 is one Manoj Marandi. P.W.5 is Sanji Devi, P.W.6 Guru Hansda, P.W.7 is one Sunil Murmu, P.W.8 is one Sanjay Hansda, P.W.9 is one Nirmal Hansda and P.W.10 is Dr. Poonam Prabha who examined the prosecutrix and who has given the medical report, Ext 1. Another witness examined is P.W.11 one Ganesh Datt Sharma is a formal witness. In her report, P.W.3, the prosecutrix, narrates the story as told by her in the fardbeyan. The prosecutrix in her statement does admit that when the incident took place, there were three persons present there, Maize crops were standing in the field and she admits of the offence being committed in the open field just beside the road in the open area at 3:00 p.m. in the afternoon. She speaks about having injuries on her wrist and back portion and blood oozing out. She also speaks about her torn clothes being given to the Daroga who came to meet her. P.W.1, her sister, also supports the story as narrated by the prosecutrix and also speaks about the co-accused Tallu Murmu assaulting her and several persons coming to the place on hearing the commotion. She denies the suggestion of false implication. P.W.2 Chandan Kumari, who is the witness who came on the spot on hearing the commotion, speaks about her going along with the prosecutrix and her sister for cutting grass and she speaks about having heard the appellant to have committed the offence. She is not a witness to the incident. P.W.4 Manoj Marandi is the father of the informant and he narrates the story as told to him by his daughter. P.W.5 Sanji Devi speaks about the incident having been told to her by certain persons. She does not say anything about seeing the offence. P.W.6 Guru Hansda, P.W.7 Sunil Murmu, P.W.8 Sanjay Hansda and P.W.9 Nirmal Hansda do not say anything about the occurrence and they have been declared hostile. P.W.11 is a formal witness who has testified with regard to recording of the F.I.R.