Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 789 (JHR)

Nand Kishore Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2006-07-04

D.P.SINGH

body2006
By Court.- The sole appellant Nand Kishore Mahto stands convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years, by the 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti in Sessions Trial No. 379 of 1994. 2. Briefs facts leading to this appeal are that in the evening of 26.1.1994, the informant Bilasi Devi had gone to ease herself in an orchard, situated at village Kerakola, Police Station-Murhu. It is further stated that the appellant came there and caught hold of her. Further alleged that he gagged the informant and committed rape upon her. The informant returned to her house and narrated the incident to the family members. The matter was reported on the next morning to Murhu police, which recorded the statement of the informant and registered Murhu Police Station Case No.4 dated 27.1.1994 under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. 3. 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 appellant was charged for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed false prosecution. After examining the witnesses, the trial court found and held the appellant guilty and sentenced him for the offence alleged to serve rigorous imprisonment for seven years. 4. The present appeal has been preferred on the grounds that the learned lower court has committed error by not considering the defence of false prosecution even on the material brought on record by D.W. 1. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the informant has filed two affidavits in the lower court stating therein that she has not been raped but lodged the first information report at the instigation of her father vide Ext. A. It is further asserted that in absence of any medical evidence to support the prosecution story regarding injuries on the victim, externally or internally, the whole prosecution should have been discarded. Some minor contradictions have also been brought to notice of this Court that the conduct of the prosecutrix was not natural, rather, supporting defence version. 5. I have anxiously considered these points alongwith the evidence available in the lower court records. It is apparent from the records that P.W 8 arid P.W g, they have formally proved the first information report (Ext. 5. I have anxiously considered these points alongwith the evidence available in the lower court records. It is apparent from the records that P.W 8 arid P.W g, they have formally proved the first information report (Ext. 3) and receipt of the petticoat vide Ext. 4 and 5. P.W 2, the informant has admitted that she did not raise alarms when the appellant tried to rape and even after she returned to her house after commission of rape vide para-3. She has further admitted that she was not examined by the police after her first fardbeyan. P.W 3 Chinta Mahto and P.W 5 Ganesh Mahto, the father and brother of the informant have supported her in examination-in-chief. However, P.W. 3 admitted that he has not seen any occurrence but signed over the statement given by his daughter before the police. He has also admitted vide para-5 that he was not examined by the police after registration of the case. P.W. 5 has asserted that the informant has got bruises on her left hand, which is not supported by the medical evidence. P.W. 4 Nathan Mahto has not supported the prosecution case except that he heard about the incident. P.W. 6 Sugani Devi, sister-in-law of the informant, P.W. 7 Bahali Devi, the mother of the informant have supported the prosecution case as they have learnt about the incident by the informant. All these witnesses have admitted that the place of occurrence was situated within very short distance of the house. P.W. 1, a lady doctor, who has examined the informant in the forenoon of 27.1.1994 and did not find any injury on her body nor any sign of sexual intercourse. 6. The fact therefore remains on record that the prosecutrix has not raised any alarms in the evening of 26.1.1994 when she being raped by the appellant. It is apparent that when she was returning to her house no efforts were made by her and her parents as well as brother available in the house to inform the villagers about the incident in spite of the fact that the appellant residing nearby, the villagers might have been approached. The prosecution version further suffers from material contradictions that if the appellant had ravished her after throwing her on the grounds, no injury was caused either externally or internally on her, which fact has been observed by P.W. 1. The prosecution version further suffers from material contradictions that if the appellant had ravished her after throwing her on the grounds, no injury was caused either externally or internally on her, which fact has been observed by P.W. 1. In such cases, normal conduct of the prosecutrix would have been to raise hue and cry regarding the incident and the family members might have approached the villagers regarding the misconduct of the appellant. The defence has brought on record (Ext. A), though it has not been confronted with the informant that she has filed affidavit denying the charge against the appellant. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find and held that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the charge against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. 8. In the result, I find and held that the present appeal has got merit and is allowed. The judgment of the trial court is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the charge levelled against him and he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.