SHIB LAL MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 29th June 1998, passed in Sessions Trial No. 137 of 1998/T.R.No. 246 of 1998, whereby and whereunder the learned Third Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi held the Appellant guilty under Section 376 Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced him to serve Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years.

(2.) The brief facts leading to this appeal are that in the afternoon of 2nd May, 1997, the informant Saraswati Kumari, P. W. 2 was cleaning her house situated in Mouja Gagari, P. S. Ormanjhi, District Ranchi when the Appellant entered into her house and forcibly committed rape on her. The informant tried to raise alarm but she was threatened and she submitted fastly to the lusted Appellant. When her parents arrived on her alarm the Appellant fled away. On the basis of this statement, Ormanjhi Police registered Ormanjhi P.S. Case No. 31/1997 under Section 376 Indian Penal Code and started investigation of the case, the victim was sent for medical examination on 3rd May, 1997, by P. W. 6, whose report is marked as Ext. 2. The police submitted chargesheet and case was committed for trial by the Court of Sessions. The Appellant was charged for the offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code by AJC Ranchi on 23rd February, 1998, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed false prosecution. The learned Trial Court after examining witnesses found and held him guilty under Section 376 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to serve Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years.

(3.) The present appeal has been preferred on the ground that the learned Lower Court has not considered the defence of the Appellant properly. It is further asserted that the manner of occurrence suggests sexual intercourse with consent of victim for which the Appellant has already remained in custody from May, 1997, till he was admitted to bail during pendency of the appeal in October, 98. According to this memo of appeal, the victim in her statement under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code has given a different version than the version recorded by the police immediately after the occurrence. It is also asserted that P.W. 1, father of the victim, P.W.4, mother of the victim, contradict each other in the manner of occurrence materially. Therefore, the Trial Court should have considered the facts apparent on record that P.W. 2 has got illicit relationship with the Appellant from before the date of occurrence and only when she was caught by her mother, false allegations have been levelled. It is also asserted that the victim was found above 17 years and was competent to give consent for sexual intercourse. Therefore, the conviction of the Appellant may be set aside.