MANGRA INDWAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22-5-1998 passed in Sessions Trial No. 188/96, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega held the appellant guilty under Section 376, I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 10 years.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that Lilli Grace Minz lodged an FIR with Kurdeg P. S. stating therein that on 6-3-1996 she was in the house of her maternal uncle (Silas Xaxa) in village Parkala. On the same day at about 8.30 p.m. she was standing on the road near the house of her maternal uncle when Mangra Indwar (Appellant) caught her and took her towards the field and when she wanted to raise alarm, appellant covered her mouth with his hand. She was taken to the field near a mango tree. Appellant threw her on the ground and committed rape on her. The prosecutrix wanted to raise alarm but she was threatened that she would be killed. Appellant committed rape on her and while leaving the place he again threatened her that in case she discloses the matter she will be killed. She went inside the house and out of fear she slept in the night but without informing about the incidence to anyone. But in the next morning she informed about the incidence to her cousin sister Fatima Xaxa, who in turn told about the occurrence to the maternal uncle and ant of the informant. Information was sent to her brother Rajesh Minz. Informant along with her brother Rajesh Minz went to the police station where police recorded her F.I.R. and on the basis of F.I.R. police regis tered Kurdeg P. S. Case No. 7/96 under Section 376, I.P.C. and after inyestigation charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and cognizance was taken and case was committed to the Court of Sessions and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega recorded the evidence of witnesses both oral and documentary and came to a finding and held the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.

(3.) Prosecution has examined 10 witnesses. P.W. 1 is Fatima Xaxa, who has been declared hostile by the prosecution as she has not supported the prosecution case.