GANESH MALLIK Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31.5.1999 and 1.6.1999 respectively passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No. 727 of 1994 whereby the appellant No. 3 has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellants Nos. 1 and 2 have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Facts of the case, in brief, are that a fard Beyan of the victim PW7 was recorded by the Police on 19.10.1992 at 10.00 a.m. alleging therein that she had gone to her maternal uncle's house at Chirkunda to see Dussehera festival in his village. According to the fard beyan she along with her companions Mala PW3 and Lalita PW6 went towards the jungle to meet natural call when appellants 1 and 2 suddenly emerged at the spot and forcibly caught hold of the victim and tried to drag her with them. In the meantime, appellant No. 3 reached at the spot and he forcibly took the custody of the victim girl from the clutches of the appellants Nos. 1 and 2 and took her to a dense forest. Her companions, who were with the victim girl, immediately reached to her village where they narrated the entire story about the incident to the relatives of the victim girl and others. A thorough search was made by the relatives of the victim but she could not be traced out till the morning. In the morning at about 4 and 5 a.m she was released by the appellant No. 3 and thereby she came to her house and narrated the entire story. She stated that her mouth was gagged by a cloth and then she was taken towards a jungle where she was ravished several times by the appellant No. 3. Immediately thereafter Chirkunda PS Case No. 227 of 1992 (GR No. 4123 of 1992) Was registered and the Police started investigation of the case. The investigating officer after completing the investigation submitted charge sheet against the appellants herein before the court.

(3.) The appellants were committed to the court of sessions and the learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the appellants. The appellants stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case and they denied the charges and claimed trial.