RAM SWARATH PASWAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.9.2012 and 27.9.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Pakur in Sessions Case No. 128 of 2008 whereby and whereunder the appellant was convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and was further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/ - and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The case of the prosecution is that one Radhika Devi (P.W. 8), wife of Ram Nath Bhagat (P.W. 1) was resident of village Amrapara. Her husband was having a shop at village Kujbana situated within the Police Station of Littipara. In the night, her husband some times used to stay at Kujbana and some times used to come to Amrapara. Her husband became familiar with this appellant, who was posted as Supply Inspector at Littipara. Thereafter the appellant started visiting the house of the victim where he used to have had meal. After some times, the appellant was posted at Amrapara and then he started visiting her house frequently and thereby he became quite intimate with her children.

(2.) ON 12.1.2007, the appellant when came to the house of the victim in search of her husband, the victim told him that her husband has gone to his shop and will be staying over there in the night. Upon it, the appellant told the victim that he will be staying in her house in the night. The appellant took meal and retired to bed. The victim also went to sleep in her room. In the night, the victim heard the appellant calling her daughter. She asked from the appellant as to what is the matter about, the appellant asked for a glass of water. When the victim came to the room where the appellant was sleeping with a glass of water, the appellant caught hold of her and committed rape upon her. She felt quite bad and waited for her husband to come. Meanwhile, in the morning at about 5.30 A.M. the appellant left home and went away. In the morning of 13.1.2007 when husband of the victim came, she told about the occurrence to him but he out of shame did not tell anybody. Next day the appellant called her on her Mobile and threatened her not to divulge the matter to anyone. He started talking her in indecent words. Thereupon he started visiting oftenly and started calling her frequently on Mobile and used to have talks with her in indecent words. Those talks were recorded. After getting it recorded, the Mobile was given to one Sanjeev @ Tuntun Bhagat for recording it in C.D. but he did not give C.D. and therefore, she got it recorded in C.D. through someone else.

(3.) UPON submission of the charge sheet, cognizance of the offences was taken and the appellant was put on trial. During trial, the prosecution did examine 8 witnesses. Of them, P.W. 1 is the husband whereas P.Ws. 2, 3, 5 and 6 are the hearsay witnesses; P.W. 4 is the son of the victim whereas P.W. 7 is the daughter of the victim. The victim has examined herself as P.W. 8. The appellant also examined their witnesses in his defence. The court having found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code convicted him for the said charge whereas acquitted for rest of the charges as the prosecution failed to prove those charges.