MANINDRA NATH SHYAMAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, in Sessions Trial No. 330/91 arising out of a Mosabani PS case No. 13/91 (GR No. 377/91), whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant, namely, Manindra Nath Shyamal for committing offence under Sections 457and 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo RI for two years each on the aforesaid counts. The sentences were to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution story as per the fardbeyan of the informant Urmila Patar (Exhibit 1) is that in the night of 16/17.2.1991 at about 1 a. m. , while the informant Urmila Patar was witnessing a drama along with her parents in the village, her father asked her at about 1 a. m. to bring a chadar as he was feeling cold. The informant went to bring chadar from her house and as soon as she entered her house, it is alleged that the appellant Manindra Shyamal also entered the room, caught hold of her and thrashed her on the ground and after removing her pant committed rape with her. The informant tried to raise alarm but her mouth was gagged by the appellant. After some time the infromant's father came and caught the appellant, who managed to release himself and fled away. It is stated that in course of scuffle, the frock worn by the informant was torn. Thereafter, the informant went to Mosabani in search of mukhiya but since the mukhiya was not available, so on the following day the informant went to the police station at about 6.00 a. m. along with her father and gave statement before the SI of Police at Mosabani, who recorded her statement and a FIR was lodged against the appellant under Sections 448 and 376 of the IPC. After completing the investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet in the case under Section 448/376, IPC, on the basis of which, cognizance was taken under the aforesaid counts and the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial.

(3.) The accused-appellant was however, charged under Section 457/376, IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and the defence case is that the accused has been falsely implicated at the instance of mukhiya, namely, Srikant Patar (PW 4) because the accused had worked against him in the election of mukliya.