KULDEEP SORENG Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have preferred the instant appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 24-4-2004, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega in Sessions Trial No. 23 of 2002, whereby the appellants were convicted for the offences under Sections 366a and 376 (2) (g)of the Indian Penal Code and also against the order of sentence to undergo imprisonment for a period of ten years for the offence under Section 376 (2) (g) and fine of rs. 1,000/- each though no separate sentence was awarded to them for the offence under Section 366a of the I. P. C.

(2.) THE case against the appellants was registered at the Kurdeg Police Station on 7-11-2001 on the basis of a written report submitted by the prosecutrix (P. W. 1) alleging, therein that on the night of 04-11 -2001 (Sunday) at about 10 P. M. , she was alone in her house. It was the occasion of 'sohrai' festival. Her father had gone to a relative's house and other members of the family were also away from house and had gone to the house of their relatives on the festival occasion. At that time all the present four appellants came to the house of the prosecutrix, and asked for water. When the prosecutrix came out of her house to offer water, the appellants finding her alone forcibly dragged her towards the nearby bushes. When she raised alarms, the appellant Kuldeep Soreng pressed her mouth and gagged her. They dragged her to a nearby tree, where they fell her on the ground and committed rape on her one after the other. After having ravished her, the appellant, Matias Dungdung took her with him to village- Baglata, where he confined her in the house of Silbanus Soreng and in the next morning, he brought her to tetanga Munda. On the way her co-villagers victor Kullu and Ashok Tete met her and escorted her to her house. She adds that a panchayat meeting was convened on the next day i. e. on 05-11-2001, but since no decision could be taken in the Panchayati, she reported the matter to the Police.

(3.) AFTER investigating the case, the Police submitted charge-sheet recommending trial of the appellants for the offences under sections 366a and 376 (2) (g ). Cognizance for the aforesaid offences was taken by the Chief judicial Magistrate, whereafter the case was committed to the Court of Session and the trial commenced in the court of the additional Sessions Judge, Simdega. The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge. Their case in defence was of total denial of the occurrence and of their false implication.