Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 975 (JHR)

Alok Verma v. State of Jharkhand

2003-08-11

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2003
JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J.- The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 24.9.2001 passed by the Sessions Judge, Palamau in S.T. no. 444 of 1999, whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 341, 342, 201 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years under sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code, He is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year each under Sections 341 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code. However, no separate sentence was awarded for the offence under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. However, by the said judgment the learned Trial court acquitted the other three accused persons who were tried together with the present appellant. 2. The prosecution case in short is that on 26.8.1998 at about 2 P.M. while the informant Munni Kumari was going to call her father and when she reached in front of the house of the appellant, it is said that the appellant caught hold of her and took her to his cattle shed and thereafter forcibly raped. After committing rape, he locked the said cattle shed from outside. On hearing this screaming of the informant, mother of the appellant came there and opened the door after the people who assembled in the lane dispersed. Thereafter the informant went to her house and narrated the occurrence to her parent and brother. On the report of the father of the informant, Panchayat was held but the appellant and his father did not agree for the Panchayat and they did not attend the same. The appellant and others threatened the father of the informant and his family members with dire consequence, if the matter was reported to the police. Ultimately the report was made to the police regarding the said occurrence after delay of more than a month i.e. 10.10.1998. In the F.I.R. itself the victim Munni Kumari has stated her age to be 13 years. 3. In order to prove the charges the prosecution examined altogether 10 witnesses out of whom P.Ws 3, 4 and 5 were declared hostile, P.Ws 6 and 7 were tendered, P.Ws. 1 and 2 are father and mother respectively, P.W. 8 is the informant herself. P.W. 9 is the Doctor and P.W. 10 is the Investigating Officer. 4. 3. In order to prove the charges the prosecution examined altogether 10 witnesses out of whom P.Ws 3, 4 and 5 were declared hostile, P.Ws 6 and 7 were tendered, P.Ws. 1 and 2 are father and mother respectively, P.W. 8 is the informant herself. P.W. 9 is the Doctor and P.W. 10 is the Investigating Officer. 4. After careful consideration the materials on record, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has fairly submitted that there is nothing much to argue in this appeal so far as the merit of the case is concerned. He submits that since the appellant has already remained in custody for five years and because of the fact that now the girl is leading happy married life, a lenient view be taken so far as the sentence is concerned. 6. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case and submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and also materials available on record, I affirm the conviction against the appellant passed by the trial court. However, so far as the sentence is concerned, since the occurrence is of 1998 and the appellant has remained in custody for five years, the sentence of 10 years awarded to the appellant by the trial court is reduced to a period of seven years Rigorous Imprisonment under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. So far as the sentence under Sections 341, 342 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same is required no interference. 7. In that view of the matter, this appeal is dismissed with the modification in the sentence as aforesaid.