LAWS(JHAR)-2004-1-9

KIRAN YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On January 12, 2004
KIRAN YADAV Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 4- 3-1998 and order of sentence dated 17-3- 1998 passed in Sessions Trial No. 398 of 1996 whereby and whereunder the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chatra held the appellant guilty under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for ten years.

(2.) Prosecution case in brief is that the informant Jashoda Devi gave written report before the officer-in-charge- of Hunterganj police station stated inter alia therein that on 19-1-1996 at about 4.00 pm. in the evening she had gone to collect cow dung from half a kilometer south towards in the forest and after collecting cow dung she was returning back at that time , the appellant caught her and when she tried to raise alarm, then he threatened her to commit murder and thereafter he threw her on the ground and committed rape on her. She came home but out of shame, she did not narrate the occurrence to anybody. One day, she saw that the man, who committed rape on her, was roaming near her house after a week of occurrence, then she narrated the occurrence to the villagers and village people caught him and handed over to the police. On this piece of written report, a case under Section 376 IPC was registered and after investigation, police submitted charge sheet. Cognizance in the case was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Session where learned 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Chatra recorded the evidence of witness both oral and documentary held the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid,

(3.) Prosecution has examined altogether seven witnesses, PW 1 is the informant herself PW 2 has been declared hostile and he has not supported the prosecution case. PW 3 has been tendered for cross-examination. PW 4 has also been tendered, PW 5 has also been tendered, PW 6 is a formal witness. PW 7 is the doctor who examined the victim girl (PW 1) but did not find any sign of rape. In order to ascertain whether rape has been committed or not, she referred the victim to Hazaribagh hospital but finding of Hazaribagh hospital has not come on the record,