SUDASHAN PAL @ AJAY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 29th August, 2002 and order of sentence dated 30th August, 2002 passed by Shri Arun Kumar Roy, 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 211 of 2001, by which judgment he found the sole Appellant guilty under Section 366(A) and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for five years for offence under Section 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for seven years for offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that it will appear from the evidences of P. Ws. 1 & 2 that the victim girl was going with the accused without any force and when she was produced before the Magistrate after her recovery then, her statement under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure, as Ext.3, wherein she has stated that no rape was committed upon her. Learned Counsel further submitted that it will also appear from 164 Code of Criminal Procedure statement that the accused-Appellant had given some medicine for making her unconscious, but she has stated in Court that no medicine was given rather the accused-Appellant offered a 'Laddu' as prashad of 26th January and after taking it, she became unconscious. When she regained sense, she found herself on a trekker on the way to Rajganj and as such the statement of the victim girl, is not reliable and the Appellant should be acquitted.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that there is no contradiction in the case. The witnesses, namely, P. Ws. 1 & 2, who had seen the victim girl going along with the accused-Appellant and they never stated that they saw her in unconscious position, naturally she was going back to her father's house along with accused. Moreover, in her statement under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure as also in her statement in Court, the victim girl, who examined in Court as P.W.4, has very clearly stated that while she was returning home from her mausi's house the accused-Appellant met her on her way and started following her. The accused-Appellant had given her a Laddu on eating which, she became unconscious thereafter he had taken her to mama's house at Rajganj and as such he has rightly been convicted and it requires no interference by this Court.