BIHARI PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Triveni Mishra, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the State.

(2.) This application is directed against the judgment dated 13.04.2004 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2001 by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla, whereby and whereunder, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 11.07.2001 passed by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Gumla, in S.T. No. 240 of 1997, convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable u/S. 376, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for seven years, has been affirmed.

(3.) It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that there are vital contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses which fact has not been taken note by either of the courts below. It has further been argued that the doctor who had examined the victim lady and the I.O. who investigated the case have not been examined by the prosecution and there is no eye-witness of the occurrence except the informant. Learned counsel furthering his argument has submitted that in the alternative if this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction, the period of sentence be modified, considering the fact that the petitioner is facing rigours of criminal case since 1997 and had remained in custody for more than 5 years.