KRISHNA SINGH @ CHHOTU SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the Judgment dated 15.3.2005 passed by Sri S.K. Murari, Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 495 of 2004, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and acquitted from the charge under Section 306 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for ten years.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in brief is that on 30.5.2004 at about 3.30 P.M. Ruby Kumari aged about 14 years daughter of Vivek Malick, was in her house located at Gandhi road, Haldi Patti, P. S. Dhanbad, Dist. Dhanbad. Accused Chhotu Singh was on visiting terms to the house of Ruby Kumari. Appellant Chhotu Singh reached to the house of Ruby Kumari in absence of other members of her family at about 3.30 P.M. He closed the mouth of Ruby Kumari and thereafter committed rape upon her. On hullah made by Ruby Kumari her brothers Manish Kumar, Sibesh Kumar Mallick, one Munna Pandit, Gaya Pandit and others reached to the place of occurrence to which Ruby Kumari disclosed about the occurrence. Ruby Kumari suffered from loose motion and vomiting. She was taken to Shakti Nursingh Home by her brother for treatment. Due to the alleged act of rape committed by the accused Krishna Singh, Ruby Kumari developed depression and thought that nothing had left in her life. She poured Kerosin Oil on her body on 01.06.2004 at about 8.30 P.M. after closing the door of the house from inside and put fire as a result of which Ruby Kumari sustained burn injuries all over her body.

(3.) THE prosecution has examined eight witnesses to prove the charge leveled against the accused appellant. They are P.W.1, Gaya Pandit, P.W.2, Phulwa Devi, P.W.3, Munna Pandit, P.W.4, Manish Kumar Mallick, P.W.5, Shivesh Kumar Mallick, P.W.6, Dr. Shailendra Kumar, P.W. 7, Dr. Dinesh Kumar Gendoria, and P.W.8, Md. Moinuddin. The defence of the accused is total denial of the alleged occurrence. It is further stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case because the father of the accused had demanded money for his land which he had sold to the father of Ruby Kumari. Further plea of the defence is that for the demand of money Vivek Kumar Mallick had quarrel with the father of the accused.