GODARO HANSDA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of five years and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - for the offence.

(2.) THE case against the appellant was registered on the basis of the fardbeyan of the prosecutrix (PW 3) recorded on 10.1.2003 at the Bagdehri Police Station. As per the fardbeyan, the prosecution's case is that the prosecutrix being a blind girl, aged about 22 years was living with her parents. On the day, prior to the date of lodging the FIR she was alone in her house. Her mother had gone to visit to her grand parents about three months earlier and was expected to return later after two months. Her father was away from home in course of his employment. The prosecutrix was thus left with her two younger brothers, one of whom though aged over 20 years, was blind and the other five year old. While she was sleeping in her room within the verandas of her house during the night, the appellant entered into her house and on being asked by the prosecutrix as to who he was, the appellant responded by stating his name. The prosecutrix also identified the appellant by his voice, since the appellant being a neighbouring resident, was a frequent visitor to her house. It is alleged that after entering into the house, the appellant forced himself upon the lady and committed rape on her four times throughout the night and left her in the next morning. On the following day, her father returned home but she could not muster courage to inform him about the occurrence. Later when she had lost her menstruation cycle, she could realize that she was pregnant. Thereafter, she reported the matter to her mother on the latter's return to her house. The father was also informed. The matter was reported to the village panchayat and a panchayat meeting was also convened where the appellant had appeared and in presence of the members of the panchayat, the appellant had confessed to have indulged in the sexual act with the lady and had agreed to marry her but later he resiled from his commitment. Thereafter the prosecutrix along with her father went to the police Station to report the incident. The lady was referred to the doctor for her medical examination. Subsequently in due course, the lady had delivered a child claimed to be the child of the present appellant. The appellant had denied the charges, pleading not guilty and had preferred to be tried. His case in defence was of total denial of the allegation and of his false implication.

(3.) THE appellant has challenged the verdict of the trial Court primarily on the ground that the impugned judgment of conviction has been passed by the trial Court without appreciating the evidences on record in proper perspective. Mr. Yogesh Modi, learned counsel appearing as amicus curiae on behalf of the appellant has highlighted the following grounds for consideration :