Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 746 (JHR)

Vyas Singh v. State Of Jharkhand

2006-06-23

DHANANJAY PRASAD SINGH

body2006
JUDGMENT D.P. Singh, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.2.2000 and 29.2.2000 passed in Sessions Trial No. 76 of 1998, whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj held the appellant guilty under Sections 376, IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo RI for eight years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment to further undergo RI for one year. 2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that in the forenoon of 25.6.1997 the informant Sugia Devi was collecting forest wood in Desahi Chonha forest when the appellant caught her from behind and forcibly committed rape. It is further stated that when the appellant was fleeing after satisfying his lust, she raised alarm and many of the witnesses saw him fleeing. The matter was reported to the villagers and a panchayati was held, after which the matter was reported to the police next day. The officer-in-charge Sadar P.S., district Palamau recorded her statement and registered Sadar P.S. Case No. 220/97 under Section 376, IPC against the appellant. The police investigated the case and finally submitted charge-sheet against the appellant. The case was committed for trial by the Court of Sessions, where charge was framed against the appellant. The trial Court finally concluded trial resulting in conviction of the appellant as mentioned above. 3. The present appeal has been preferred on the ground that the trial Court did not consider the improbability of the prosecution version. It is further asserted that the appellant was falsely implicated due to his informing the forest officer regarding illegal activities of the family members of the informant. It is also asserted that the medical report did not support the prosecution, the version of rape and neither any eye witness has supported the case. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant, on the basis of interested witnesses, may be set aside. 4. All these points stressed before this Court by the learned Amicus curiae Miss Mahua Palit, appearing on behalf of the appellant. 5. I have gone through the entire case record along with argument advanced. The prosecution has examined the informant as PW 8, who has supported her version before the police. She has been cross-examined at length regarding the manner in which she was raped. 5. I have gone through the entire case record along with argument advanced. The prosecution has examined the informant as PW 8, who has supported her version before the police. She has been cross-examined at length regarding the manner in which she was raped. She has asserted that she got scratch injuries on the right elbow and back. Her version has been supported by PW 1, Sabita Devi, PW 2 Dhanwa Devi, PW 3, Rudani Devi. PW 4 Sabitar Devi, PW 7 Sonkali Devi, all accompanying the informant at the time of collecting woods. They have named the appellant fleeing from the place of occurrence. They have cross-examined without any benefit to the defence. 6. PW 5 is the father-in-law of the informant, who was reported by PW 8 regarding the incident. PW 6 Kajru Bhuiyan has also supported the prosecution version as hearsay witness. 7. PW 9 is the doctor, who has examined the informant on 26th June, 1997. She has supported the story of prosecutrix that scratches were found in the back and right elbow. However, she has denied that any evidence of rape was available. 8. PW 10 is IO of the case. The defence that appellant was falsely implicated in the present case, has not been supported by any positive evidence on record. 9. On consideration of fact available on record, it appears that the informant reported the matter to her companions and family members immediately after the occurrence. It further appears that the appellant was seen fleeing away by the witnesses from the place of occurrence. There is no reason apparent on record to support the suggestion that appellant was falsely implicated in this case just because he was instrumental in giving information against the family member of the informant. I further find that the appellant has remained in custody from 28.6.1997 and refused bail by this Court during pendency of the appeal. As such he has already served the period of sentence of eight years and also served RI for one year in default of payment of fine. 10. Having regard to the above mentioned facts and circumstances, I find that the present appeal has got no merit and deserves to be dismissed. 11. In the result this appeal stands dismissed. As such he has already served the period of sentence of eight years and also served RI for one year in default of payment of fine. 10. Having regard to the above mentioned facts and circumstances, I find that the present appeal has got no merit and deserves to be dismissed. 11. In the result this appeal stands dismissed. Office shall transmit the case records forthwith along with copy of this order for information and needful, so that the appellant may be released forthwith from custody, if not wanted in any other case.