CHITNTA SINKU Vs. 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 year 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 prosecutrlx (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 husband's 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 her 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.) ALTOGETHER, nine witnesses were examined by the Prosecution at the trial, including the prosecutrix (P. W. 9), the Doctor (P. W. 3) and the Investigating Officer (P. W. 4 ).