CHINTA SINKU Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has preferred the instant appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.09.2003, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. II, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 07 of 2002, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ -.

(2.) THE case against the appellant was registered on the basis of the Fard Beyan of the prosecutrix (P.W. 9), recorded on 20.09.2001, at 9:00 A.M., at Kumardungi Police Station, for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. The appellant is named in the F.I.R. As per the Fard Beyan of the informant, who is a married lady, aged 20 years, she used to reside in the house of her husbands brother -in -law, Manki Sinku at village Barusal Tola Maranda, since her husband was away, in course of his employment. It is alleged that in the afternoon of 08.09.2001, (Saturday), she was reclining on a cot inside the room of the house. At that time, the other members of the house had gone for work and finding her alone, the accused Chinta Sinku entered her room and by subjecting her to threats of dire consequences, he committed rape on her and had also forbade her from reporting the matter to any person. Again in the afternoon of 11.09.2001, while she was alone in the house, the accused came to her room and committed rape on her by subjecting her to threats of injury to her life and person. Though, this time, he forbade her from informing anybody, yet in disgust, she informed the matter to her sister -in -law, Mukta Kui, who narrated the incident to her husband, Manki Sinku. She waited thereafter for the return of her husband but when her husband did not return, she went to the Police Station, accompanied by her brother -in -law, Manki Sinku on 20.09.2001 and lodged the information with the Police. After registering the case, the Police forwarded her for Medical examination to the Hospital, where she was medically examined. On concluding the investigation, the Police submitted chargesheet recommending trial of the appellant for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. The appellant was thereafter put on trial for the aforesaid offence. He had pleaded not guilty to the charge and preferred to be tried. His case in defence was of total denial of the occurrence and of his false implication.

(3.) MS . Bakshi Vibha, learned Counsel appearing as amicus curiae for the appellant argues that the learned trial court has committed grave error in placing reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix without considering the fact that there are several inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimony of the prosecutrix. Learned Counsel explains that whereas in her Fard Beyan the prosecutrix has claimed that she had waited for the return of her husband and when he did not return within expected time, she went to the Police Station accompanied by her brother -in -law and lodged the information with the Police. In her deposition at the trial, however, she claims that her husband returned home 7 -8 days after the second date of occurrence and she reported the matter to him, whereafter she went to the Police Station for lodging the complaint. Learned Counsel argues that this change in version of the lady is only to offer a futile attempt to explain the delay in lodging the F.I.R. Learned Counsel points to yet another contradiction in the testimony of the prosecutrix and explains that whereas in the Fard beyan, the prosecutrix had stated that she was living in the house of her husbands brother -in -law, since the past one month prior to the alleged date of occurrence but in her evidence at the trial, she says that she has been living in the house of her husbands brother -in -law since about past 4 -5 years, prior to the alleged date of occurrence.