ABDUL RAUF Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal at the instance of the appellants named above has been directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 23.7.1999 and 26.7.1999 respectively passed in Sessions Trial No. 16 of 1998 by Shri Shital Prasad Thakur, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad whereby and whereunder the appellants were found guilty for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and they were each convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. However, they were not found guilty for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. It is relevant to mention here that four other co -accused persons, namely, Albabu Ansari, Maklu @ Shamim Ansari, Altu Ansari and Sher Mohammad were also found guilty for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years except co -accused Albabu Ansari, who was awarded sentence to the period already undergone by him but they have not preferred appeal against the impugned judgment.

(2.) THE prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the Fardbeyan (Ext. 2) of P.W.7 Lakhi Devi, the informant and said to be the victim of ravishment in this case recorded by S.I. S.K. Poddar of Govindpur Police Station Camp Jangalpur Road, Shri Ram Briquet on 1.9.1997 at 19.00 hours inside the premises of Shri Ram Briquet aforesaid regarding the occurrence which is said to have taken place in the night between 31.8.1997 and 1.9.1997 at 1.15 hours in the staff quarter in occupation of P.W.2 Ranjit Gope, the husband of the informant within the premises of the said Shri Ram Briquet and a case was instituted against the appellants and other co - accused persons on 1.9.1997 at 19.45 hours by drawing of a formal first information report (Ext.3). The fardbeyan and the first information report were received on 4.9.1997 in the Court empowered to take cognizance.

(3.) THE appellants have pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against them and they claim themselves to be innocent and to have committed no offence and they have been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of the owner of Shri Ram Briquet factory, as they were agitating for the appointment of the local person in the said factory. It has also been contended that they used to take their breakfast and meal in the shop of the informant and there was some differences regarding the payment in respect thereof and due to that the informant had falsely implicated them in this got up case and no occurrence as alleged has ever taken place.