SITA RAM SAHU Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners along -with two others namely, Rudhu Devi and Ram Prasad Sahu were tried for the offences under Sections 323, 366 -A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner Sita Ram Sahu was convicted for committing the offence under Sec.376, Indian Penal Code for committing rape on the minor Sushila Kumari, the daughter of the informant and was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 7 years. He was further convicted for the offence under Sec.323, Indian Penal Code but no separate sentence was passed for the said offence. The other co -accused Rudhu Devi was convicted for the offence under Sec.323, Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of six months. Whereas the 3rd co -accused namely Ram Prasad Sahu was convicted for the offence under Sec.323/114 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of six months by the trial Court by judgment dated 13.6.1997.

(2.) THE aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence, passed by the trial Court, was challenged by the convicts in appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 52/1997 before the Sessions Judge, Gumla. The learned Sessions Judge by judgment dated 4.8.1997 affirmed the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner and against the co -accused Rudhu Devi but he set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the 3rd co -accused namely, Ram Prasad Sahu.

(3.) THE prosecution case in short is that in the month of October, 1993 Sushila Kumari aged about 14 -15 years, daughter of the informant, was mowing grass in Jhariatand. At that time the petitioner came there caught hold of her and forcibly took her to the hedges near the mountain and then forcibly committed rape on her. After the rape the petitioner threatened the victim that if she disclosed the factum of rape to anybody she would loose her life. It is said that thereafter, the petitioner with promise to marry raped the victim several times due to which she became pregnant. In June, 1994 the fact was disclosed by the victim to her parent and then a pancnayari was held wherein the petitioner is said to have confessed his guilt. A panchnama was prepared but at the time of putting signature on the panchnama the petitioner is said to have fled away from that place. However, his father the other co -accused Ram Prasad Sahu put his signature on the panchnama.