MATHURA HEMBROM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order passed by 4th Additional Session Judge, Singhbhum West at Chaibasa dated 10/11, January, 1996 in Sessions trial No. 612 of 1990 whereby the present appellants have been punished for rigorous imprisonment of 10 years for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of Indian Penal Code and a final of Rs.2000/ - to each of the accused and in case of default further rigorous imprisonment for one year has been inflicted upon them.

(2.) IT is the case of the prosecution that on 26th of July, 1989 at about 6 p.m. the informant Kumari Nuni Guge (PW 2) gave her statement to the Police that on 6th June, 1989 when the informant was returning to her village from Mangla Haat, Chaibasa along with her aunt Gobna Gwalin, Koita Gwalin (PW 1) and Maito Gwalin and when they reached at village a Hotobasa at about 7 p.m. in the evening the accused Manjura Hembrom, (appellant No. 2), Rajesh Hembrom, Ankura Hembrom and Mathura Hembrom (appellant No. 1) came there and they forcibly took the informant at Nakabasa football ground which is a lonely place. Thereafter two accused persons closed her mouth by putting handkerchief in mouth and the accused had committed rape upon her one by one. Initially present appellant No. 2 had committed rape. Thereafter the accused had ran away. It is further stated by her that the accused persons were corning to her village with lethal weapon since before and she identified them before occurrence. It is also stated by her that due to social dignity and also keeping in mind that if she will disclose this offence there may be some trouble in future of her marriage and therefore there is a delay in lodging the F.I.R. It is also stated by her that accused persons had threatened her that if she will disclose the offence to anybody the entire family of the informant will be killed. Therefore there was delay in lodging the F.I.R. It has also been stated by her that after returning to her house she had disclosed the fact of rape committed by accused to the inmates of her family. The offence was investigated statements of the witnesses were recorded charge -sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions being Sessions trial No. 612 of 1990 and upon recording evidence of the witnesses, the learned trial court has convicted and punished the appellants accused for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code for rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs.2000/ - to each of the accused was also imposed and in case of default of payment further rigorous imprisonment for one year was directed to be imposed by the learned Trial Court. Against this order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court the present appeal has been preferred.

(3.) WE have heard the learned A.P.P who has submitted that the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the deposition given by the prosecutrix who is PW 2. She has categorically stated that when she was coming with other witnesses from Mangla Haat, Chaibasa to her village and when she reached Dungri of village Hotobasa at about 7 p.m. on 06.06.1989 the present two appellants and other co -accused came and they forcibly took the prosecutrix at Nakabasa Football ground which is a lonely place where the appellant No. 2 first has committed rape upon her and thereafter the other co -accused including the present appellant No. 1 have committed rape one by one. Looking to her cross -examination it is submitted by learned A.P.P. that her deposition given examination -in -chief remained intact as it is. She has also given reasons for delay in lodging of the F.I.R. because she was administered threat by the accused. There was a delay in filing of the F.I.R. and due to social dignity also she had thought that if this offence will be disclosed it may create some difficulty in her marriage. It is submitted by learned A.P.P. that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the prosecutrix. Her version gets further corroboration by the deposition of PW 1, PW 3 and PW 4. It is also submitted by learned A.P.P. that about these two appellants he has inquired from the Jail Authority as to their involvement in other cases and he has been informed by the Jail Authority that both these appellants are involved in more than half dozen of offences separately. Thus, no error has been committed by the learned trial Court in appreciating the evidences given by the prosecution witnesses while convicting and punishing these appellants. The learned A.P.P. further submitted in paragraph No. 9 of the deposition of PW 2 prosecutrix she has stated that there was grass at the ground where she was forcibly taken by these accused. She has also stated in paragraph 24 in her deposition as PW 2 that there are several offences registered against these accused. No error has been committed by the learned trial Court in punishing and convicting these accused for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code and hence the appeal may not be entertained by the Court.