Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 784 (JHR)

Bhado Soren v. State of Jharkhand

2006-07-03

D.P.SINGH

body2006
Order The sole appellant Bhado Soren has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of sentence dated 22.8.2000 passed by Assistant Session Judge, Rajmahal in Sessions Case No. 64 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the sole appellant has been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years. 2. Brief facts leading to his conviction are that Parvati Hansda daughter of Chutar Hansda, alongwith her parents and other siblings has gone to the house of the informant situated at village Mongladih during Bandhana festivals in the February 1998. According to the prosecution, all the senior members have left the house to participate in Bandhana festivals in the evening while victim alongwith other minor children was sleeping. At about 8 p.m. the informant Kanhai Soren and his wife Dena Murmu heard cries of the children and rushed towards their house and found that the appellant was committing rape on the victim, Parvati aged about four years. They tried to catch hold the appellant but he managed to flee away. They found the victim bleeding from her private parts and unconscious, the matter was reported to the villagers who tried to search the appellant but could not found him. Thereafter Village Pradhan Baburam Soren was informed who assured them that action will be taken next morning. However, in the morning when no action was taken they went to village Sitapahar, house of the father of the victim where child was taken to Mission Hospital for her treatment. The Mission Authorities, finding the child serious, informed the police regarding the incidence and FIR was lodged with Ranga Police Station on 26.2.1998. The police recorded the statement of Kanhai Soren and registered Ranga PS. Case No.6 of 1998 under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, arrested the appellant and investigated the case. The child was further referred to hospital for her treatment. The police finally submitted charge-sheet against the appellant and the case was committed for trial by the Court of Sessions. The trial Court framed charge against the appellant on 17.12.1998 to which he pleaded not guilty. However, the trial Court after examining the witnesses found and held the appellant guilty for the offences charged and sentenced him to serve HI for ten years. 3. The trial Court framed charge against the appellant on 17.12.1998 to which he pleaded not guilty. However, the trial Court after examining the witnesses found and held the appellant guilty for the offences charged and sentenced him to serve HI for ten years. 3. The main defence taken by the appellant was that he has been implicated falsely in this case at the instance of Mission Authorities as he objected against their activities of conversion of Christianity. The present appeal has been preferred on the grounds that the evidence before the trial Court is not credible. It is further asserted that the victim was not examined and even the medical evidence does not confirm that rape has been committed. Further more the judgment has been criticized on the grounds that the informant could not be examined. It is further stated that independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. 4. I have given anxious consideration to the points raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is a case in which a child below four years of her age, said to be subjected to be forceful intercourse resulting in bleeding injuries on her private parts and her becoming senseless. This fact has been asserted by PW 9 Dena Murmu who reached at the place of occurrence at the cries raised by the children. She further asserted that when the matter was reported to Village Pradhan Baburam Soren he did not take care and asked them to come next day. She has admitted in cross-examination that the appellant was related with them but denied that any land dispute was going on between them. She has further admitted that the child was found beneath the mango tree near her house. She admitted that the child could not say her about the incidence. Her version has been supported by PW 5 Mani Murmu, PW 6 Sister Luci and PW 7 Dr. Sarita Tudu to the extent that Parvati was seen by them bleeding from her private parts in senseless condition just after the occurrence. PW 5 has further denied that there was any dispute regarding land between the appellant and the informant. PW 6 Sister Luci saw the victim having bleeding injuries on her private parts and she went with them to police station to lodge the FIR. She has been cross-examined at length but without any benefit to the defence. PW 5 has further denied that there was any dispute regarding land between the appellant and the informant. PW 6 Sister Luci saw the victim having bleeding injuries on her private parts and she went with them to police station to lodge the FIR. She has been cross-examined at length but without any benefit to the defence. PW 7 examined the victim at 11 p.m. on 26.2.1998 and found the victim aged about 3 and 1/2 years with laceration of introitus with swelling of valve and tear of hymen and treated the child. She denied that such injuries may be caused due to fall on hard and blunt substance. PW 8 is the father of the victim who has seen the child in injured condition. During cross-examination this witness admitted that he has approached the Mission people for help who carried them to police station. 5. The I.O. of this case PW 10 has supported the prosecution case in details. According to him, after recording statement of Kanhai Soren, he referred the child for her treatment. He further has examined the Village Pradhan Baburam Soren PW 1, Kanhai Murmu PW 2, Munsi Murmu PW 3 who were declared hostile by the prosecution. According to the I.O. they have supported the prosecution case when he examined them vide paras 3, 4 and 5 of his examination-in-chief. He admitted that Parvati was aged about four years and she could not say about the rape. He has admitted that when Parvati was brought to police station she was senseless. 6. Therefore the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against the appellant with sufficient evidence. As against this the defence witness examined on behalf of the appellant Lakhiram Murmu denied that any such occurrence has taken place. According to him the appellant used to oppose the activities of Sita Pahar Mission for which this false case has been lodged. The defence taken by the appellant appears to be far-fetched. It is most unlikely that the informant with help of his girl Parvati has implicated falsely the appellant particularly when she was found in ravished condition by the independent witnesses PWs 5, 7 and 8. 7. As such, I find and hold that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against the appellant that he sexually violated the minor girl aged about four years. 7. As such, I find and hold that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against the appellant that he sexually violated the minor girl aged about four years. The trial Court has discussed all the facts in details. I do not find any reason to disagree with the views taken by the learned trial Court in this count. As such, I find that there is no merit in this appeal. The conviction of the appellant is accordingly confirmed and the present appeal is dismissed.