TULSI YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR NOW JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment dated 15-9-1999 passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 463 of 1992 whereby and where- under the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 376, IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years.

(2.) Initially the prosecutrix Usha Devi lodged a complaint in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara against the present appellant alleging therein that the appellant Tulsi Yadav was her next door neighbour. The complainant Usha Devi was a married minor girl aged about 13-14 years. Her Gouna was not performed at that time and she was living with her parents. Tulsi Yadav the appellant who had a criminal background and was an accused of serious offences like dacoity and murder was a widower. He, in the month of Paush in the year 1990, when her lather had gone out for milking cows of other persons, her mother had gone to Hatia and the complainant was alone in her house at that time, the accused Tulsi Yadav taking advantage of the situation entered in her house and after giving threat on her life committed rape on her. After commission of rape the accused threatened her that if she would divulge this fact to her parents, they would also not be spared. The complainant out of fear did not divulge the facts to her parents and then being emboldened by the silence of the informant, the accused continued to commit rape on her whenever she was alone in her house, It was further alleged in the complaint petition that in this way she became pregnant and when she disclosed this fact to the accused, he brought her to Jamtara Popular Nursing Home on 24-4-1990 and got her aborted. She further alleged that on 23-4-90 she was again brought to Jamtara Popular Nursing Home and that day her parents could detect her and then she was compelled to divulge the entire state of affairs to them. The said complaint lodged by the complainant was sent by the A.C.J.M. to the police in exercise of power under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. for institution of F.I.R. and accordingly, the police formally instituted F.I.R. on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint petition. Thereafter the police on completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet and accordingly the appellant was put on trial for the charges under Section 376, I.P.C.

(3.) The defence of the appellant was a false implication due to enmity and total denial of the occurrence.