Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 387 (JHR)

Rajib Manjhi v. Rajib Manjhi

2006-04-18

D.P.SINGH

body2006
Judgment D.P Singh, J.- This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 11.9.2000 and 16.9.2000 passed in Sessions Trial No. 199 of 1997, whereby and whereunder the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro held the appellants guilty under Sections 376(2)(g) IPC and convicted and sentenced them to undergo RI for seven years each and appellant Rajib Manjhi has further been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months. 2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that on 11th April, 1997, on Friday at about 11 AM, the prosecutrix Sanjoti Kumari has gone to fetch water from Barki Joria rivulet, situated at one kilometer away from her village and while she was returning, all the three appellants came there and asked her for sexual intercourse by appellant no. 1 Rajib Manjhi. As per victim, while appellant Rajib Manjhi forcibly raped her, two appellants stood as guards. Thereafter the appellants left the place giving threatening not to disclose to anyone otherwise she may face the consequences. The victim reached her house and narrated the incidence to her mother Malti Devi, who advice her to wait till her father returned from duty. Accordingly the matter was reported to Chas Police Station on 15.4.1997, on the basis of which Chas P.S. Case No. 15/97 was registered under Sections 376/ 34 IPC against all the three appellants. The police investigated the case and got the victim examined by the Doctor, PW 4 and he finally submitted charge-sheet against all the appellants. 3. The case was committed for trial by the prosecution and after evidences, judgment was delivered by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro on 16th September, 2000, wherein the appellants were found and held guilty for the offences under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and sentenced them accordingly. 4. The main point raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned trial court has relied upon the evidences of the prosecutrix without being corroborated by the medical evidence. It is further submitted that there was no eye-witness of the occurrence except the prosecutrix and her evidence is not supported by any corroborative evidence. 4. The main point raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned trial court has relied upon the evidences of the prosecutrix without being corroborated by the medical evidence. It is further submitted that there was no eye-witness of the occurrence except the prosecutrix and her evidence is not supported by any corroborative evidence. According to the learned counsel, the girl was found aged about 18 years and as per her statement her private parts were subjected to injuries, which could not be found by the doctor. It is also submitted that appellants deserve to be acquitted from the charges under Section 376 IPC. The learned counsel frankly submitted that the appellant No.1 Rajib Manjhi has remained in custody through out the trial and even during pendency of the appeal and, therefore, he has already served the sentence. According to the learned counsel, two other appellants have also remained in custody for about one year. 5. The learned APP opposed this contention on the ground that this a case of gang rape in which learned trial court has correctly relied upon the evidence of the prosecutrix, even in absence of the medical evidence and, therefore, the conviction may be confirmed. 6. I have gone through the entire evidence available in the lower court records and in the impugned judgment. The learned trial court has discussed the evidence of the prosecutrix in context of supporting evidence. The delay in lodging the FIR is one of the grounds. which is properly explained by the prosecution that when the girl returned to her house and informed the matter to her mother, she advised her that in absence of her father, the matter could not be reported. Thereafter the prosecutrix and her family members did not like to report the matter to police for two three days. 7. The defence has also challenged the prosecution case on the ground that there was a land disputes between the Mama of the prosecutrix and the appellants. The learned trial court has discussed all these aspect, vide paras 19, 20 and 21 of the judgment, where the father has returned to the house after three days of the occurrence and, thereafter the FIR was lodged. 8. The learned trial court has discussed all these aspect, vide paras 19, 20 and 21 of the judgment, where the father has returned to the house after three days of the occurrence and, thereafter the FIR was lodged. 8. So far as the point raised by the counsel for the appellants that prosecution case was not supported the blood stained panty recovered by I.O. and in absence of injuries on the private part of the prosecutrix, is of no help to the appellants. If the girl is grown up and she has been subjected to forcible sexual intercourse, injuries may not be present on her private part. It is also not possible to disbelieve the whole prosecution story in absence of blood stained panty. I do not find any reason why the prosecutrix could come to depose falsely against the appellants without any compelling circumstances. 9. Having considered all these facts and circumstances, I find that the conviction of the appellants deserve to be confirmed. Accordingly, this appeal is found without any merit. 10. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that appellant Rajib Manjhi has served more than the term prescribed and he may be released at once. So far as the point of sentence regarding appellants Ram Prasad Manjhi and Waki Manjhi is concerned, it is submitted that they have already remained in custody for about one year. It is further pointed that even the prosecutrix has not stated any overt act on their part and therefore, their sentence may be modified to the period already undergone. 11. From perusal of evidences available on record, I find that these two appellants admittedly have not taken any active part in the commission of rape except that they are said to have been guarding when the rape was committed and they have remained in custody for about a year. In such view of the matter, the period of sentence of the appellants Ram Prasad Manjhi and Wakil Manjhi is modified to the period already undergone by them in custody. 12. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of. Since appellant Rajib Manjhi is in custody and he has already served the period of sentence, he is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case and period of sentence of appellants Ram Prasad Manjhi and Wakil Manjhi is modified to the period already undergone by them in custody. 12. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of. Since appellant Rajib Manjhi is in custody and he has already served the period of sentence, he is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case and period of sentence of appellants Ram Prasad Manjhi and Wakil Manjhi is modified to the period already undergone by them in custody. All the appellants are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.