Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 432 (JHR)

Sadan Raut v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)

2006-04-21

D.P.SINGH

body2006
JUDGMENT : O. P. Singh, J.-The sole appellant Sad an Raut stands convicted for the offence under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for five years by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella in Sessions Trial No. 229 of 1998. 2. The brief facts leading to his conviction are that the informant Santra Devi, wife of Bangali Kalandi, of village-Bisaigora, Police Station-Kharsawan, has gone to purchase rice from the shop of Sheo Mandai in the evening of 17th February, 1998. It is further stated that when she was returning with one kilogram of rice and reached in front of the house of the appellant, she was caught hold from behind by the appellant and dragged towards a bush. It is further stated that the appellant threw her on the earth and tried to commit rape upon her. Thereafter she raised alarms and her husband and other witnesses reached there, as such the appellant fled away. The incident was reported on the next day of the occurrence at Kharsawan Police Station on 9.00 A.M. On the basis of which Kharsawan Police Station Case No. 8 of 1998 was instituted. 3. The police investigated the case and finally submitted charge-sheet against the appellant. The case of the appellant was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The learned trial court framed charge against him on 9.4.19898. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be innocent. The trial court after examining the Witnesses, ultimately found him guilty of the offences, attempt to commit rape and sentenced him to serve rigorous imprisonment for five years. 4. This appeal has been preferred on the ground that the learned trial court has committed errors on record. It was also asserted that the victim alleged that she was thrown on the ground and attempted to be raped but no injury has been found on her body by the doctor. Neither any incriminating material like broken bangles etc. was found on the spot by the Investigating Officer. It is also asserted that no independent witness has supported the incident. 5. According to the learned counsel for the appellant that the entire story is concocted because the presence of the witnesses is not possible. It is also submitted that there was no eye-witness of the occurrence. was found on the spot by the Investigating Officer. It is also asserted that no independent witness has supported the incident. 5. According to the learned counsel for the appellant that the entire story is concocted because the presence of the witnesses is not possible. It is also submitted that there was no eye-witness of the occurrence. He stressed these points before this Court and tried to suggest that false implication was possible but without giving any cogent or probable reason. 6. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the contention on the grounds that the appellant was caught fleeing from the place of occurrence by the eye-witnesses, who were examined by the prosecution. 7. I have gone through the materials available on the record carefully to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant. P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 have been declared hostile as they said that they do not know about the incident. P.W. 3 is a formal witness, who has proved the writing on the fardbeyan. P.W. 4 is the victim, supported the prosecution case in details. She has admitted in cross-examination that she got hurt in the back and witnesses are related with her. However, no suggestion was made why she could falsely implicate the appellant. P.W. 5 is the husband of the informant and hearsay witness of the occurrence. P.W. 6 has informed the police. P.W. 7 is the Investigating Officer of this case, who has visited the place of occurrence. He has been criticized that he did not gave the boundary of the place of occurrence. 8. From perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charges against the appellant that he tried to commit rape on the victim in the evening of 18.2.1998 while she was coming back after purchasing rice. I do not find any suggestion in the cross-examination of the witnesses and even in the statement of the appellant made under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that there is possibility of false implication. Accordingly, I find that the learned trial court• has correctly found and held him guilty of the offence3 under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. Accordingly, I find that the learned trial court• has correctly found and held him guilty of the offence3 under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has already remained in custody for two and half years during trial and he was admitted to bail by this Court on 4.8.2000. Therefore, the sentence may be modified to the period already undergone by him. 10. On consideration of the materials available on the record and considering the age of the appellant at the time of alleged offence, I find that the ends of the justice may be served adequately if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with modification of sentence. The appellant is also discharged from the liability of his bail bonds.