MURARI YADAV Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 28/6/2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Seraikella-Kharsawana in S.T. No.74 of 2005 whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been held guilty and convicted for the offences under Ss. 366, 376 r/w 511 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. of 5 years.

(2.) Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 11/2/2005 at about 1:30 PM, the informant Anjana Jha (P.W.) sent her five year old daughter to the shop of one Subhash Yadav for bringing two packets of shampoo. The informant's daughter brought one packet of shampoo, then the informant again sent her to the shop for bringing one more packet of shampoo. The daughter of the informant could not return till considerable time and she was getting too late, then the informant went to upstairs and from her roof, she loudly called her daughter. Thereafter, the daughter of the informant came to house under suspicious circumstances along with servant of Subhash Yadav namely Murari Yadav(appellant). The informant asked her daughter as to what happened with her then she told that present accused after putting off her pant has done some dirty thing with her private part. The informant noticed near vagina some red rashes. It is further alleged that the informant immediately reported the matter to the owner of shop Subhash Yadav, who assured that he will take necessary action against his servant but he did nothing, hence, this case was lodged.

(3.) On the basis of above information, Adityapur P.S. Case No.39 of 2005 dtd. 12/2/2005 was lodged for the offence under sec. 376 of IPC. After conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the sole appellant for the offences under Sec. 376/511 of IPC. The case was committed to the court of Sessions where S.T. case No. 74 of 2006 was registered and charge for the offence under Sec. 376/511 of IPC was framed against the accused/appellant, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of the trial, the impugned judgment and order has been passed, which has been assailed in this appeal.