BHADO SOREN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole appellant Bhado Soren has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of sentence dated 22.8.2000 passed by Assistant Session Judge, Rajmahal in Sessions Case No. 64 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the sole appellant has been convicted under Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R.l. for ten years.

(2.) Brief facts leading to his conviction are that Parvati Hansda daughter of Chutar Hansda, alongwith her parents and other siblings has gone to the house of (he informant situated at village Mongladih during Bandhana festivals in the February 1998. According to the prosecution, all the senior members have left the house to participate in Bandhana festivals in the evening while victim alongwith other minor children was sleeping. At about 8 p.m. the informant Kanhai Soren and his wife Dena Murmu heard cries of the children and rushed towards their house and found that the appellant was committing rape on the victim, Parvati aged about four years. They tried to catch hold the appellant but he managed to flee away. They found the victim bleeding from her private parts and unconscious, the matter was reported to the villagers who tried to search the appellant but could not found him. Thereafter Village Pradhan Baburam Soren was informed who assured them that action will be taken next morning. However, in the morning when no action was taken they went to village Sitapahar, house of the father of the victim where child was taken to Mission Hospital for her treatment. The Mission Authorities, finding the child serious, informed the police regarding the incidence and FIR was lodged with Ranga Police Station on 26.2.1998. The police recorded the statement of Kanhai Soren and registered Ranga PS. Case No. 6 of 1998 under Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code, arrested the appellant and investigated the case. The child was further referred to hospital for her treatment. The police finally submitted charge-sheet against the appellant and the case was committed for trial by the Court of Sessions. The trial Court framed charge against the appellant on 17.12.1998 to which he pleaded not guilty. However, the trial Court after examining the witnesses found and held the appellant guilty for the offences charged and sentenced him to serve R1 for ten years.

(3.) The main defence taken by the appellant was that he has been implicated falsely in this case at the instance of Mission Authorities as he objected against their activities of conversion of Christianity. The present appeal has been preferred on the grounds that the evidence before the trial Court is not credible. It is further asserted that the victim was not examined and even the medical evidence does not confirm that rape has been committed. Further more the judgment has been criticized on the grounds that the informant could not be examined. It is further stated that independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case.