DILIP SOREN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Dumka (S. P.) in Sessions Case no. 151 of 2001 whereby and whereunder the appellant, Dilip Soren was convicted under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and ten years respectively on each count.

(2.) THE prosecution story, as it stands narrated in the written report (Ext. 1) presented by the prosecutrix Mani Murmu (P. W. 3) before the Officer-in-charge of Shikaripara police station on 14-7-2000, was that on 15-6-2000 at about 8. 30. p. m. while she was alone in the house, the appellant, Dilip Soren came and enquired the whereabouts of her husband, Sangram Hembrum (P. W. 1) who was running Crusher Machine at digalpahari. On the reply of the prosecutrix that he had not returned back, it was alleged that the appellant forcibly dragged her out at the point of dagger and took away with him to village Basauria, put and confirmed her in a house of his near relative and ravished her. She was confined there for one night and one day and he did not allow her to come out from the room and from there she was again taken away by the appellant to village Galdaha where she was kept confined in the house of his relative for six days and it was alleged that the appellant committed rape on her for all the six nights. It was further alleged that the parents of the appellant came there at village galdaha to whom she conveyed about the occurrence and also requested them to take her back to her own house as marriage of her daughter was to be solemnized on 22-6-2000 but she was assured that she would be taken to her house only after the marriage of her daughter. It was further alleged that from village Galdaha she was taken to village Bakijar by the appellant where she was again ravished in the house of his near relative and on Friday noon the parents of the appellant came there and conveyed that marriage of ther daughter was solemnized and then she was taken by the mother of the appellant to her (prosecutrix) sister's house at village Kudupahari where she narrated the occurrence to her sister Nathan murmu (P. W5 ). Disclosing the motive, the prosecutrix narrated that the father of the appellant Man Singh Soren was a night guard at the Crusher Machine of her husband and Man Singh Soren was removed from service by her husband and for such reason the appellant on account of enmity ravished her for several nights together. On the written report Shikaripara P. S. Case No. 60 of 2000 (Ext. 3) was registered by drawing a formal fir (Ext. 4) for the offence under Sections 366 and 376 of Indian Penal code against the appellant Dilip Soren. The police after Investigation submitted chargesheet in the said sections and the appellant was put on trial after his pleading false Implication on account of enmity during framing of charge.

(3.) THE prosecution had examined altogether six witnesses. Besides, the prosecution proved the written report (Ext. 1), Injury report of the prosecutrix (Ext. 2), endorsement on the written report (Ext. 3) and the formal FIR (Ext. 4 ).