SOUKHI PASI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 7/12/1999 and order of sentence dated 8/12/1999 passed by Shri Vinod Kumar Sinha. 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 200 of 1998 whereby and where under the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants under Sections 376(g). 323/34 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 376(g) of the Indian Penal Code and awarded a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months; three months simple imprisonment under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and one month simple imprisonment under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. However all sentences were ordered to run concurrently.T

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is that Anita Devi given her fardbeyan before the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police on 29/4/1998 stating therein that on 22/4/1998 at 10 a.m. while she was coming after taking bath and washing clothes alongwith the wife of Sudhir Pasi, the appellants Sokhi Pasiand Manrij Pasi intercepted her and when she protested, Manoj Pasi caught her hand and told to obey whatever he was saying and she caught hold the & hand of the wife of Sudhir Pasi (Kaushalaya Devi) but they had threatened her and thereafter both the accused persons caught hold of her and started assaulting her and thereafter both the appellants committed rape on her forcibly one after another and they have threatened the informant-victim to keep mum and not to disclose the incident anywhere) filling which dire consequences with follow. Accordingly first informatory report was lodged. The police investigated into the case and submitted charge-sheet. The appellants appeared in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge. Charge was framed accordingly to which they pleaded not guilty. Witnesses were examined from both sides and after hearing both sides the appellants were convicted and sentenced for the said offences in the manner as stated above hence this appeal.

(3.) Altogether eight witness have been examined on behalf of the prosecution in support of its case of whom PW 8 is a formal witness. PW 2 is the victim, who claimed that when she was coming after taking bath along with Kaushalya Devi the appellants intercepted her and thereafter they assaulted her. It is further stated that they got her down and thereafter first appellant Sokhi Pasi committed rape on her and then second appellant Manoj Pasi also committed rape on her. It is stated in clear terms by her in her cross-examination that Kaushalya Devi (PW 4) was with her but she did not try to save her and fled away. Surprisingly enough this Kaushalya Devi (PW 4) has not supported the prosecution case in any manner. PW 2 further admitted in her cross-examination that she sustained injury on her person and her bangles were also broken at the place of occurrence but the Investigating officer (PW 7) clearly deposed that nothing could be seized from the place of occurrence and as such this fact also becomes falsified.