SUBHASH MANDAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole appellant has been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years by the Sessions Judge, Giridih, vide his judgment dated 19.9.1997 in ST. no. 192 of 1993.

(2.) BEING aggrieved by the said judgment the appellant has filed the present appeal.

(3.) THE prosecution case is that the informant, Maimoon was working in the house of the appellant, Subhas Mandal as maid servant since last about seven years on a monthly pay of Rs. 150/ - per month. She used to work there from 7 A.M. to 8 P.M. It is stated that the appellant started to induce the informant, Maimoon from January, 1992 for getting her ready for Sexual intercourse with him but she always refused. However, after about three months on 15.3.1992 at about 7 P.M., while the informant was washing utensils in the house of the appellant and all the inmates of the house were out, the appellant caught hold of her from behind. She wanted to rescue herself but she failed and then the appellant threw her down and then committed rape on her against her will. When she started weeping, the appellant paid Rs. 100/ - to her and asked not to disclose to anyone about the said occurrence. She did not disclose the matter to any one, out of shame and kept mum. It is further stated that the appellant used to satisfy his lust, whenever he got opportunity and he also paid some money to her and in this way she became pregnant about which she came to know in the month of August, 1992, then she disclosed the fact of pregnancy to the appellant, who assured her, that he would get the pregnancy terminated. Since then the appellant stopped having sexual intercourse with her and he started supplying medicine to her for terminating her pregnancy but medicines were of no effect and ultimately when the pregnancy became apparent physically, her family members could know about it. On being asked by mother and sister, the informant disclosed the fact of rape to them and then her mother and sisters enquired from the appellant about the same, the appellant acknowledged his guilt and offered to bear the cost for terminating the pregnancy of the victim, but when the money was demanded from him, the appellant flatly refused to pay any amount. It is stated that at that time the victim was aged only 15 years and thereafter finding no way she lodged the complaint in court.