SIBRU BARAIK Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 17.6.2002 and order of sentence dated 18.6.2002 passed by Shri Alok Kumar Dubey, Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Gumla in Sessions Trial No. 149 of 2000, by which judgment he found the Appellant guilty under Sections 376 and 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and 5 years under Section 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code. However, he directed both the sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that it will appear from the evidence of the witnesses that the victim girl after elopement was staying in the house of the Appellant for the last 3 days just in front of the house of her father, but the victim never raised 'Hullah', which is admitted by the evidence of P.W.6-informant himself. Moreover, although the victim girl-P.W.3 has admitted that she was taken by force and the accused had shown 'Chura'. P.W.1, who is eye witness, he does not say that he saw any 'Chura' in the hand of accused. Moreover, the allegation of rape, has not been supported by the evidence of the doctor, who found no external or internal injury and also found that the victim is habitual in sexual act and there is no sign of recent sex. In that view of the matter, the conviction of the Appellant under Section 366A as also under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is not correct and the same is only fit to be set aside. Learned Counsel further submitted that the F.I.R has been lodged after a long delay of 30 days for which there is no explanation and as such the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that it will appear from the evidence of the victim girl that she was taken by force at the point of 'Chura' to the house of the accused where the accused kept her for three days and committed rape upon her and the Appellant has rightly been found guilty and it requires no interference by this Court.