MANAY SUNDI @ LANGRA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State.

(2.) This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction dated 01.07.2008 and order of sentence dated 03.07.2008 passed in Sessions Trial No. 240 of 2007 by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code whereby the appellant has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year.

(3.) The prosecution case in brief is that on 28.07.2007 the prosecutrix namely Jemanti Purty, aged about 5 years, who is daughter of the informant Motai Purty, was subjected to rape by the accused, who was working in the house of the informant. It is alleged by the informant that the prosecutrix was twice subjected to rape by the accused. The offence was not noticed by any one, as the adult members of the house were not present and on 29.07.2007, the prossecutrix informed her mother about the occurrence. The information about the offence was given by the informant Motai Purty to the village Munda, Suresh Chandra Sundi, who got application addressed in the name of Chairperson of the District Women Organization (Zila Mahila Samitee) and forwarded the same with his endorsement. The said written application was ultimately sent to the police and on the basis of which Muffasil P.S. Case No.107 of 2007 was instituted for the offence U/s 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet in this case. In this case, charge was framed against the accused for the offence U/s 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code on 28.09.2007. The appellant has denied all the charges levelled against him and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case because of the fact that the accused was working in the house of the informant and his wages were due, which he was demanding. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, upon which he was put on trial.