RASHID MIAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Shri Satyendra Singh, Ist Addl. Sessions Judge, Gumla in S.T. No. 54/91 by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 376, IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 10 years.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief as stated that on 22.8.1990 informant Mahendra Lohra had gone to work in the field of Mahto's of his village and his wife had also gone outside the village for fetching grass at about 2.00 p.m. after leaving her daughters, Prabha Kumar, aged about six years, victim and Sumitra Kumari aged about three years, who were staying in the house. At about 5 p.m. his neighbour Bharat Sahu came to the Informant at the field and informed that his daughter Prabha has been raped by Rashid Mian at about 5 p.m. and she was weeping and also blood was oozing out and the villagers have collected at his house. On receiving this information, he came to his house and saw that a crowd of villagers collected at his house and his daughter Prabha Kumari was sitting and weeping and her pant was stained with blood. The informant in presence of the villagers enquired from his daughter, to which the victim Prabha Kumari narrated that the appellant, Rashid Mian, her neighbour took her in his lap and carried her inside his house and committed rape on her after laying her on the ground. Blood started oozing out from her vegina and her pant was soaked with blood. Thereafter, the accused/appellant ran away from there. The victim any-how reached her house and started weeping. Accordingly, FIR was lodged by the father of the victim. The police investigated into the case and submitted charge-sheet against the appellant for the offence under Section 376, IPC. The appellant/accused appeared in the lower Court and the charge was framed under Section 376, IPC against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty.

(3.) The defence case as alleged that he has been falsely implicated in the case. The witnesses were examined in the lower Court and after considering the evidence on record, the Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant and sentenced him to underdo R.I., in the manner as mentioned above.