RAJESH KHALKHO Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction of the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code recorded by Sri R.P. Srivastava, 4 Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in S.T. No. 28/96, arising out of Lalpur P.S. Case No. 2/95, corresponding to G.R. No. 4/95 by which he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years.

(2.) PROSECUTION story in short was that the appellant Rajesh Khalkho had visited the house of the prosecutrix Shanti Minz in the evening of 1st January, 1995 at about 7:00 p.m. and asked meal from her. Considering his request, the prosecutrix served meal to him and after he had finished his meal, the appellant was asked to go back to his home but the appellant with the mala fide intention expressed his desire to sleep in her home, to which she guided him to go and sleep in the Kumbha made of straw with her son and brothers. Prosecutrix further narrated that she then retired to her bed after closing the door and slept there with her minor children. At about 12'0 clock she woke up when the appellant entered into her room by forcibly opening the door. The appellant immediately overpowered her by climbing on her body and also thrashing her by fist blows and cautioned that she would be killed in case she would raise alarm. He put out the lamp, tore her blouse and pushed her undergarments upward and committed rape on her. Her minor child, who was sleeping by her side, woke up and his screaming caused commotion as a result whereof the witnesses entered into her room and found the prosecutrix partially naked. They tried to overpower the appellant at the door itself but he escaped. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded at the police station on the subsequent day morning. The Investigating Officer after investigation of the case submitted charge -sheet against the appellant for the offence under Section 376, Indian Penal Code. Consequently, charge was framed under such Section and the appellant was put on trial.

(3.) ADVANCING his argument, Mr. Roy pointed out that the prosecutrix was quite older, married lady having several children, whereas the appellant was only 25 years old.