ANUP TIGGA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State.

(2.) Since, these three appeals have been preferred from the same judgment of conviction dated 16.4.2002 and order of sentence dated 16.5.2002 passed in S.T. No. 447 of 1988 by Shri Hara Prasad Chakraborty, Special Judge-cum-Additional Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi, by which judgment he found all four appellants guilty under Sections 452/34, 366/34 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and learned trial Court passed the sentence of R.I. for five years only under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and passed no separate sentence under Sections 452/34 and 366/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that it will appear from the evidence of the prosecutrix-Sudhan Mahli as given in the F.I.R. and as given in the Court, are contradictory to each other. Moreover, the Doctor, who examined the victim girl on the next day of occurrence//.e. 4.8.1982, found no sign of rape although victim has alleged that four persons committed rape upon her. In that view of the matter, considering the fact that the defence witnesses have stated that she is a loose character lady, therefore, the conviction of the appellants under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is bad in law and fit to be set aside.