LAWS(JHAR)-2015-1-177

SUJATA PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On January 21, 2015
Sujata Pradhan Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed under proviso to section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.1.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Simdega in Sessions Trial No. 2 of 2008 whereby and whereunder respondent no.2 has been acquitted of the charge levelled under sections 376/506/417 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that while the prosecutrix (PW4) was alone in her house, respondent no. 2 came to her house and when found that nobody is there, he bolted it from inside and then ravished the prosecutrix. When the prosecutrix told respondent no. 2 that she would be telling this to her parents, the accused/respondent no. 2 promised to marry her. Thereafter, the prosecutrix went on having sex with the respondent no. 2 for quite a long time. In the month of July, 2006 she became pregnant. Thereupon, when she asked the respondent no. 2 to marry her, he refused to marry her. However, she went on having sex with her. When the prosecutrix carried pregnancy of about seven months, she again asked the respondent to marry her, but he refused to marry and then a panchayati was convened on 9.1.2007 where also respondent no. 2 refused to marry.

(3.) When the accused /respondent no.2 was put on trial the prosecutrix was examined as PW4. Apart from her, other witnesses were also examined. It be stated that before framing of the charge, a petition had been filed on behalf of the accused respondent no. 2 praying therein to direct the prosecutrix to have DNA test of the child whose birth has been given by the prosecutrix. The respondent no. 2 even offered to bear the expenses, but the prosecutrix denied to have any DNA test of her child. The respondent also examined two Defence Witnesses who have testified that the respondent no. 2 has been falsely implicated for the reason that Kalindi Pradhan wanted to get the prosecutrix appointed illegally as a para teacher, which was not accepted and, therefore, this false case has been lodged.