JOLLY DAS Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the respondent No.2, in the admission stage itself.

(2.) This acquittal appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 22nd Dec. 2011, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rajmahal, in S.C. Case No.42 of 2002, whereby the accused respondent No.2, who had faced the trial for the offences under Sec. 376, 417 and 493 of the Indian Penal Code, has been acquitted of the charges.

(3.) The police case was instituted on the basis of the complaint case filed by the complainant-appellant. The facts of this case, is detailed in the impugned Judgment, show that it is alleged that on 17.2.2000, the appellant had gone to the house of her neighbour Mona Devi for preparing Biri. One Roopwati Devi was also present there and both of them had kept the accused-respondent No.2 inside the room. While working, the appellant demanded water, whereupon, she was asked to go and take the water, which was kept in the room. It is alleged that the appellant went in the room, where she was subjected to rape by the respondent No.2, and even upon alarm raised by the appellant, the above said ladies did not come to her rescue, rather after the occurrence, they asked her to marry the accused-respondent No.2 and they brought the accused in the room, where the accused-respondent No.2 put garland in the neck of the appellant in presence of a photo of a God. Thereafter Roopwati Devi also informed the mother of the respondent No.2, who did not raise any objection. It is alleged that thereafter they used to make sexual relations at the house of said Mona Devi. Subsequently, it is alleged that the accused refused to marry the appellant, when the accused got job in BMP. In the meantime, the appellant had became pregnant of 7 to 8 months. Mainly with these allegations, the complaint case was filed, which was sent for institution of the police case, in which the police submitted charge sheet after investigation and ultimately, the respondent No.2 was put to trial.