KHATABUDDIN KHAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision is directed against the order, dated 17.12.1996 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 108 of 1996 by the Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj confirming the judgment of conviction order, dated 3.8.1996 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Garhwa in S.T. No. 60 of 1995 convicting all the appellants accused under Sections 448, 323 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced all of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under each Section and he further convicted the petitioner No. 1, Khatabuddin Khan under Section 376, IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six years. However, there was an order that all the sentences would run concurrently.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief as stated that one Halima Bibi lodged FIR alleging that she was sitting inside her house when all the petitioners/ accused entered into her house and they tied both hands and thereafter, one of the accused Khatabuddin Khan dragged her inside the room and committed rape forcibly. She started weeping and raised alarm. It is further alleged that other accused persons assaulted her mercilessly and she was confined in a room. Accordingly, the FIR was lodged. The police investigated the case and submitted charge-sheet after framing charge against all the petitioners/accused persons. The witnesses were examined in the trial Court. The petitioners were also examined under Section 313, Cr PC. One defence witness was also examined from the side of the accused persons. After hearing the arguments and considering the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted the petitioners/accuse persons and sentenced them in the manner as stated above.

(3.) Against the said judgment, the petitioners/accused persons preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, which was dismissed. Thereafter, this revision has been filed on the grounds that the learned Court below ignored in appreciating the evidence in proper manner. It is impossible to think that a man of 60 years will be able to commit rape twice over a young lady as the petitioner No. 1 is an old man aged about 60 years, but the learned appellate Court did not appreciate this fact at the time of considering the appeal. It is also alleged that the Doctor did not find any injury or sign of rape and as such the judgment of the lower Court is fit to be set-aside.