SUPAI HANSDA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment dated 3.8.1991 passed by Sri Jiwan Tigga, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 172/1990 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that Pano Soren (the Informant) daughter of Jatu Soren of village Serandi, lodged F.I.R. on 24.6.1988 at about 6.45 A.M. at Manjhari P.S. stating therein that accused Supai Hansada son of Late Salku Hansda of village Maridih, P.S. Bahalda, District Moverbhanj (Orissa), while living at village Legda P.S. Manjhari, District Singhbhum, developed intimacy with her. It is further alleged that the accused appellant used to meet her regularly and assured her that he would marry her and keep her as his wife. On this assurance and allurement, she regularly used to meet him at Legra Hat and on his command she went to Jahar Tungri in April 1988 where he assured her that he would marry her and on that pretext forcibly cohabited with her for several times. Thereafter, she began to meet the accused appellant several times at Jahar Tungri, as a result of which she became pregnant. When she disclosed this fact to the accused appellant in May 1988, the accused appellant again assured her that he will keep her as his wife. Thereafter, the accused appellant along with the informant came to her house and she informed her parents about their relationship. The accused appellant also confessed before the parents of the informant and assured them also to keep the informant as his wife: He, with the permission of the parents of the informant, took the informant but on the way near Lagra Dungri, he left the informant and fled away. Thereafter, the informant returned to her house and informed her parents as well as villagers about the conduct of the appellant. The father of the informant went to the Manki of village who convened a Panchayati according to the village customs. In the said Panchayati accused appellant Supai Hansda came and confessed his guilt but refused to keep the informant. Parents of the informant and the villagers tried to settle the matter but Supai Hansda did not agree to keep the informant Pano Soren as his wife. Hence the informant lodged this F.I.R. on 24.6.2988 against the accused appellant under Sections 376/493 I.P.C. After completion of investigation, the officer-in-charge of Manjhari Police Station submitted charge sheet against the accused appellant under Section 376 I.P.C. Thereafter, after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions after complying the legal formalities.

(3.) The prosecution examined nine witnesses to prove its case. Amongst them P.W.2 Lakhan Murmu and P.W.3 Urgan Murmu have been tendered and P.W.5 Jatu Soren (the father of the informant) has also been tendered for cross-examination from the side of defence. P.W.1 Gopi Nath Murmu, P.W.4 Gagan Soren, P.W.6 Pano Soren (the informant), P.W.8 Ganga Ram Biruwa, Manki of the village are material witnesses. P.W.7 Dr. J.S. Soren is the lady Doctor who examined Pano Soren on 25.6.1988 at 10.55 A.M. P.W.9 Damurdhan Biruwa is Pleader's clerk who has proved the F.I.R as Exhibit-4.