CHUNI ALIAS CHUNU HEMBRAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal has been preferred by appellant Chuni @ Chunu Hembram who stands charged under Section 376 of the I.P.C. for committing rape on Panbati Soren. The 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Dumka (S.P.) by judgment dated 15th December, 1993 passed in Sessions Case No, 593/92 convicted the appellant under Section 376, I.P.C arid sentenced him to undergo R.I. for seven years.

(2.) THE prosecution story in brief is that on 23.6.92 the victim Panbati Soren had gone to Bahiyar for grazing herds of cattle. At about 5 p.m. the accused Chuni Hembram came there and caught hold of her and forcibly made her naked and after pushing her down on the ground forcibly committed rape on her. No other person was present near the place of occurrence except a girl namely Marsila Hansda aged about 10 years, who had seen the occurrence; The accused also threatened the victim of dire consequences, if she disclosed the occurrence to anybody. The victim return back to her house and narrated the story to her parents. It was night, hence the police was informed on the following day, i.e., on 24.6.92, she along with her father came to the police station and on her fardbeyan the case was registered against the accused and after investigation charge -sheet submitted and the trial proceeded in the Court below. The case of the defence is that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to village politics and previous enmity.

(3.) P .W. 1 Panbati Soren is the main witness being the victim girl and supported the case as made out in her fardbeyan, she stated that while she was grazing herds of cattle in the Bahiyar the accused Chuni Hembram forcibly made her naked and pushed her on the ground and committed rape. On her alarm the accused threatened with dire consequences and she returned back to her house and narrated the story to her parents. On the following day, she went to the police station where the case was registered on her statement. She was sent for medical examination she identified the accused in the dock. She further stated that earlier also the accused used to tease her and wanted forcibly marriage with her, but her parents were not ready for the same. P.W. 7 is the I.O. of the case who stated that he has seized the cloth of the victim girl and prepared the seizure list (Ext. -3) and sent the girl for medical examination. He recorded the statement of the witnesses and submitted the charge -sheet. P.W. 8 is the Doctor who examined the victim girl and medical report has been marked Ext. -4. The lady doctor has not found any external or internal injury on the person of the victim girl but she could not give any definite opinion whether she was raped or not. According to her, spermatozoa was not found on her private part. In her opinion, the victim girl was aged about 17 years.