DOCTOR RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 4.9.1992 passed in Sessions Trial No. 329 of 1990 whereby and whereunder the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka held the appellant guilty under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and convicted him and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for seven years.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that on 29.10.1989 there was a Kali Mela in village Kulkuli Dangal and Namita Ghatwalin went to see the fair and she did not return home till late in the night and so Gour Rai, informant searched for her. Namita Ghatwalin is deaf and dumb and in course of search informant went to village Banwari under Raneshwar Police Station along with Radhey Shyam Rai and others and found his sister weeping there. He brought her home and she by indication and gestures, pointing out that appellant along with two of his friends forcibly carried her to a lonely place while she was returning from fair and all the three including the appellant committed rape on her and left her alone. On the basis of statement of his sister Namita Ghatwalin, the informant gave fardbeyan to the officer-in- charge of Shikaripara Police Station, on the basis of which, a case under Sections 366 and 376, IPC was drawn up and police after investigation submitted charge-sheet and cognizance in the case was taken and the case was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed against the appellant and the learned trial Court after recording evidence both oral and docu mentary came to conclusion and found the appellant guilty and convicted him and sentenced him as aforesaid.

(3.) The judgment has been assailed on the sole ground that procedure for recording evidence of deaf and dumb witness has not been followed and, therefore, judgment is bad in law. It was also pointed out that all are hearsay witnesses and, therefore, since precaution for recor- ding evidence of deaf and dumb has not been followed and, therefore, evidence of prosecutrix is not admissible in evidence.