MALINDO MARANDI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29-3-1993 passed in Sessions Trial No. 365 of 1992 whereby and whereunder the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka held the appellant Malendo Marandi guilty under S. 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 14-10-1991, prosecutrix was going from her Naihar to her husband's village alone and her daughter aged two years was in her lap. It is further alleged that when she reached a little ahead of village Jai Pahari, this appellant appeared and snatched the child from her lap, kept her aside and committed rape on the victim lady and then proceeded towards village Jai Pahari. The prosecutrix after reaching her village narrated the happenings to her husband and thereafter on the next date, a panchayati took place at village Jai Pahari where she identified the appellant, but the appellant refused to confess his guilt, but after being assaulted by the victim lady and her husband, the appellant confessed his guilt upon which, Panchayati fined the appellant Rs.300.00 and when he refused to pay the fine, the victim-prosecutrix lodged the case against the appellant with Dumka Muffassil P. S. for the offence committed under Ss.376, 341, 354 and 323 IPC. On the basis of statement of prosecutrix, a case being Dumka (M) P. S. Case No. 109/91 was registered under Ss. 376, 341, 354 and 323 IPC and I. O. after investigation submitted charge sheet. Cognizance in the case was taken and case was committed to the court of session where charges were framed and the learned court below after recording evidence - both oral and documentary - came to a finding and held the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.

(3.) The judgment was assailed on the ground that without examining the Mukhia, learned court below has come to a finding against the appellant. The judgment was also assailed on the ground that the prosecutrix was aged lady having one child and doctor has also not supported the case of rape. The judgment was further assailed on the ground that rape is said to have been committed on the hilly track but prosecutrix has not sustained any injury. The judgment has further been assailed on the ground that I.O. of the case has not been examined.