NILRATAN MANDAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Yadunandan Mishra and learned counsel for the State, Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. Public Prosecutor and Mr. Santosh Kr. Shukla, AddI. Public Prosecutor.

(2.) Both the criminal appeals are directed against the conviction of these appellants under Ss. 341, 323, 376(2g) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment of conviction dtd. 9/10/2002 passed by the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribag, in S.T. No.503 of 2001 and order of sentence dtd. 10/10/2002, whereby they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs.500.00, imprisonment of six months under Sec. 323 of IPC, imprisonment for one year under Sec. 506 of IPC and imprisonment for one months under Sec. 341 of IPC.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is doubt about the identity of the person, who has lodged the F.I.R., thus the entire prosecution case is vitiated. He further submits that as per the F.I.R. informant is P.W.-2, who is the victim, but the victim stated that his father had also narrated the fact to the police officer and she had countersigned the said document which suggest that the actual informant is the father and not the informant. He further submits that victims were also examined by the Doctor, but he did not find any injury on the private part of the victims, which would suggest that no rape has been committed. It is the case that because of grudge, these appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, the learned counsel for the appellants pray for acquittal of the appellants.