MANOJ DUNGDUNG Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 14.6.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega in ST. No. 4 of 2002 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Sections 451/354 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced under Section 451 of the Indian Penal Code one year R.I. with fine of Rs. 5,00/ -, under Section 354 of the lndian Penal Code one year R.I. and under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. In default of payment of fine of Rs. 500 under Section 451 I.P.C. 3 months R.I., in default of payment of fine Rs. 1000/ - u/s 307 I.P.C. 6 months R.I., sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this appeal are that in the afternoon of 31.3.2001 P.W. 9 Kiran Ekka was preparing tea in her house situated in Mauza Sikariadanr PS. Simdega when the appellant entered in the house and tried to commit rape. Further stated when she objected and resisted the appellant assaulted her with Bhujali causing grievous injuries on her. The victim raised alarm on which the informant, her father PW. 5 Benjamin Ekka who was making tiles alongwith other witnesses reached to find that the appellant was rushing out of the house. They further found the victim lying seriously injured inside the house. The informant brought the victim for her treatment at Simdega Sadar Hospital and police was informed.

(3.) THE present appeal has been preferred by the appellant from custody. It is asserted in this memo of appeal that the learned trial court has committed a mistake by relying upon the interested witnesses. It is also asserted that there are material contradictions in the ocular version of the incident by witnesses examined before the trial court. According to learned counsel Sri Sunil Kumar, the statement of witnesses require strict scrutinization. It is also asserted that in view of the improbability of presence of the appellant at the time of alleged occurrence and also in absence of independent witnesses, the trial court should have rejected the prosecution case. The learned counsel further pointed out that the I.O. has not conducted the investigation properly. Therefore the conviction of the appellant who has remained in custody for nearly 6 years be set aside.