BAIDA RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 21-3-1998 and order of sentence dated 25-3-1998 passed in Sessions Trial No. 337 of 1993/11 of 1994 whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Lohardaga held the appellants guilty under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and convicted and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for five years.

(2.) case in brief is that Savitri Kumari, the informant, lodged an FIR with the Kuru Police Station on 16-2-1993 at about 5.15 p.m. alleging inter alia that on 13-12-1993 at about 7.00 p.m. she had gone out of her house to attend the call of nature in the field where suddenly Gopal Mahli and Baida Ram came and caught her and forcibly took her to hill side, although she tried to raise alarm but the appellant No. 2-Gopal Mahli, at the point of dagger, asked her to keep quiet and thereafter he committed rape on her. When she started weeping, then he threatened to stab her to death, she.had no way out but to keep mum. Thereafter appellant No. 1-Baida Ram committed rape on her. Both of them detained her in the hill in the night. The appellant No. 1-Baida Ram brought food from his house and compelled her to take the meal. All the three spent night in the hill and both the appellants committed rape on her one by one on assurance that Baida Ram would marry her. Next day also, she was detained on the assurance of marriage and in the night also, they committed rape on her. On the following day, in the evening, both the accused persons brought her to the village and kept in the house of Laloo where her father and choukidar came. The accused persons on seeing them fled away. She was brought back home nd on fourth day of the rence i.e 16-2-1993 she was taken to Kuru P.S. where she lodged a case. Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet under Sections 341, 376/34, IPC. Cognizance in the case was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Session where learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Lohardaga recorded evidence of witnesses both oral and documentary and came to a finding and held the appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid.

(3.) Prosecution has altogether examined eight witnesses. PW-1 is Soma Uraon. He is the father of the informant as well as the victim girl. He has been declared hostile and he has not supported the prosecution case. PW-2 is Laldeo Manjhi. He has been tendered for cross-examination. PW-3 is Bhukhal Ram Uraon. He has come to say that Soma (PW-1} came to him and informed that his daughter is traceless. On getting this piece of information, he along with PW-1 and choukidar went to the residence of Laloo Manjhi where he saw her (his) daughter (PW-5) and both the appellants. On seeing them, both the appellants fled away from there and on inquiry, Savitri Kumari (PW-5) told him that she was taken to the hill side where both the appellants committed rape on her. He admits that there was darkness so he did not try to catch them. Savitri was also fleeing away but she was caught.