LAWS(JHAR)-2007-11-1

LAL MOHAN HANSDA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On November 02, 2007
LAL MOHAN HANSDA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 27th February 2004 passed in Sessions trial No. 410 of 2001, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence under sections 341/354 of the IPC.

(2.) THE case was registered on the basis of the complaint initially filed by the prosecutrix before the learned Chief Judicial magistrate, which on being forwarded to the police under section 156 (3) of the Cr. P. C, was registered for the offence under sections 341, 354 and 376/511 of the IPC. Case of the prosecution is that negotiation of the complainant's marriage with one girish Mardi Echra of Jadugora was finalized according to the social custom. On 11. 4. 1999 the elder brother and another relative of the complainant had gone to the house of Girish Mardi for performance of some pre-marriage ceremony. In the evening of the same day, the complainant and her friends namely, Sarswati Murmur and Kumari Bali had gone for the evening walk. At that time, the appellant Lal Mohan Hansda accosted the complainant on the road and caught hold of her hands. It is alleged that the appellant had tried to undress the complainant and to commit rape on her, but on her alarms and the alarms raised by her friends, the appellant fled away after putting vermilion on the complainant's forehead. The complainant's mother and another person arrived there on hearing her alarms and took her to their house. The matter was reported to the village head. A Panchayati was convened and in presence of the panchayati, the appellant had confessed his guilt and had promised to compensate the family of the complainant. As a result of the above incident, the marriage of the complainant which was settled with Girish Mardi had broken. The appellant had eventually backed out from his assurance of compensating the family of the complainant.

(3.) CHARGE against the appellant was framed for the aforesaid offences to which he did not plead guilty. His case in defence was of total denial of the alleged occurrence.