GOPAL MAHATO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19-2-2001 passed in Sessions Trial No. 14 of 1995, whereby and whereunder the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella held the appellant guilty under Sections 376/511 IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo RI for five years.

(2.) The brief facts leading to this appeal are that in the forenoon of 13-3-1993 the informant Sabita Kumari, PW 2, has gone to collect forest woods along with PW 1 Basanti, situated near Chirugora, P.S,. Ichagarh, District West Slnghbhum and when she was cutting woods from the trees the appellant Gopal came there and objected why she was cutting woods from the forest. It is further stated that he further slapped her and thereafter tried to carry her towards . a ditch. PW 1 tried to resist the appellant and rescue the informant but failed. Thereafter PW 1 went towards the Block buildings. In the meantime appellant forcibly threw the informant on the ground and committed rape. PW 1 came along with police and got the appellant arrested on the spot, the police recorded statement of the informant at 15 hours and registered a case under Section 376 IPC against him. The police started investigation and sent the informant for medical check up and seized underwears of the appellant and the informant. Later on chargesheet was submitted showing the appellant guilty under Section 376 IPC. The case was committed for trial by the Court of sessions and learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant under Section 376 IPC. The trial was concluded by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikelfa in which the appellant was found and held guilty under Sections 376/511 IPC and convicted and sentenced him to serve RI for five years.

(3.) The present appeal has been preferred on the ground that the learned lower Court has not considered the materials on record. It is also asserted that the whole prosecution story suffers from probability and credibility. According to the counsel for the appellant, PWs 1 and 2 do not inspire confidence. The Doctor has also not found any sign of rape on the informant. It is also asserted that in absence of I.O., material prejudice has been caused to the defence. It is also asserted that when the learned trial Court did not find any evidence regarding the offence of rape, he convicted the appellant for offence of attempt of rape. The learned counsel for the appellant further pointed out that as per PWs 1 and 2, the appellant was arrested by the police just after completion of the commission of rape, which is not possible as the place of occurrence is situated in the forest at a distance of 5 kms from the P.S. Therefore, even if PW 1 has gone to call for help, at least she could not have reached the P.O. within such a short period of 10-15 minutes. As such, the appellant, having been convicted in a false case, deserves to be acquitted.