Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 250 (JHR)

Manoj Dungdung v. State of Jharkhand

2007-04-04

D.P.SINGH

body2007
Judgment By Court.- The sole appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 14.6.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega in S.T. No. 4 of 2002 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Sections 451/354 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced under Section 451 of the Indian Penal Code one year R.I. with fine of Rs. 5,00/-, under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code one year R.I. and under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine of Rs. 500 under Section 451 I.P.C. 3 months R.I., in default of payment of fine Rs. 1000/- u/s 307 I.PC. 6 months R.I., sentences to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that in the afternoon of 31.3.2001 Pw. 9 Kiran Ekka was preparing tea in her house situated in Mauza Sikariadanr PS. Simdega when the appellant entered in the house and tried to commit rape. Further stated when she objected and resisted the appellant assaulted her with Bhujali causing grievous injuries on her. The victim raised alarm on which the informant, her father pw. 5 Benjamin Ekka who was making tiles alongwith other witnesses reached to find that the appellant was rushing out of the house. They further found the victim lying seriously injured inside the house. The informant brought the victim for her treatment at Simdega Sadar Hospital and police was informed. 3. The Simdega police arrived and recorded the statement of the father at 20.45 hours same day to register a case under Sections 448, 376/511, 324, 326, 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. The police investigated the case and finally submitted charge-sheet against the appellant after his arrest. The trial of the appellant was committed to the court of sessions where he was charged for offence under Sections 307, 376/511 and 451 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed false prosecution. However the learned trial court after evaluating the evidence found and held him guilty for offences under Sections 307, 354 and 451 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as mentioned above. 4. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant from custody. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed false prosecution. However the learned trial court after evaluating the evidence found and held him guilty for offences under Sections 307, 354 and 451 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as mentioned above. 4. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant from custody. It is asserted in this memo of appeal that the learned trial court has committed a mistake by relying upon the interested witnesses. It is also asserted that there are material contradictions in the ocular version of the incident by witnesses examined before the trial court. According to learned counsel Sri Sunil Kumar, the statement of witnesses require strict scrutinization. It is also asserted that in view of the improbability of presence of the appellant at the time of alleged occurrence and also in' absence of independent witnesses, tne trial court should have rejected the prosecution case. The learned counsel further pointed out that the I.O. has not conducted the investigation properly. Therefore the conviction of tile appellant who has remained in custody for nearly 6 years be set aside. 5. I have gone through the material on record to consider the submissions on merit. The prosecution version that when the informant• was preparing tiles nearby his house alongwith the witnesses, he heard alarm raised by Kiran and rushed towards his house. It has come on record that when they reached near the house the appellant was seen by all the• witnesses coming out from the house. The informant alongwith witnesses went inside the house to find pw. 9 lying badly injured and she disclosed to them that the appellant has tried to commit rape upon her and on her resistance, assaulted her with sharp cutting weapon Bhujali. pw. 1 Luiece Ekka, pw. 2 Bishram Tirkey, pw. 3 Samir Kindo, pw. 6 Binod Ekka have consistently stated that they were preparing tiles and on alarm raised by Kiran rushed towards the house of pw. 5 to find the appellant rushing out of the house. They further asserted that when they went inside the house they find pw. 9 lying with bleeding injuries on her hand, leg, neck and head. The witnesses have further stated that pw. 9 disclosed to them under what circumstances she received the injuries caused by the appellant. P.w. 7 is Dr. They further asserted that when they went inside the house they find pw. 9 lying with bleeding injuries on her hand, leg, neck and head. The witnesses have further stated that pw. 9 disclosed to them under what circumstances she received the injuries caused by the appellant. P.w. 7 is Dr. Chandra Nath Jha who examined the victim Kiran at 7.40 p.m. same evening and found altogether 13 incised wound on various parts of her body caused by sharp cutting weapon. Therefore the prosecution has been able to prove that Kiran was seen by these witnesses inside her house lying badly injured with sharp cutting injuries and at the same time saw the appellant rushing out of the house. PWs. 5 and 8 are parents of the victim they have supported the fardbeyan in details. P.w. 9 has given the details how she was confined and subjected to attempted rape. Learned counsel for the appellant has tried to go through certain minor contradictions brought in cross-examination of different witnesses regarding the manner in which the appellant tried to commit rape or was seen fleeing from the house and further that how the door of the house was found closed or open. The appellant before the trial court has suggested to P.w. 9 that she has inflicted these injuries herself which is apparently misconceived. The minor contradictions appearing in the statement of different witnesses are usual and natural because everyone sees the occurrence and remembers that according to their perception and convenience. But the facts remain when immediately on alarm raised by PWs. 9, 7 witnesses rushed on the PO. they saw the appellant fleeing out of the house. They further found that P.w. 9 Kiran was lying badly injured inside the house. These circumstances goes to prove beyond doubt that the appellant was coming out of the house after assaulting the daughter of the informant. The version of P.w. 9 further stand supported by subsequent events and her disclosure. 6. The I.O. pw. 10 has found the said Kiran in badly injured condition and sent her for medical examination. The evidence of PW. 7 in this context has already been discussed. He seizes the Bhujali weapon of assault and one fullpant belonging to the appellant from the place of occurrence in presence of witnesses vide Ext.- 1A and 1/2. Those material Exts. have been produced before the court below. The evidence of PW. 7 in this context has already been discussed. He seizes the Bhujali weapon of assault and one fullpant belonging to the appellant from the place of occurrence in presence of witnesses vide Ext.- 1A and 1/2. Those material Exts. have been produced before the court below. Furthermore the defence has not brought on record any circumstances why the appellant would be implicated falsely in this case. He simply denied any knowledge about the incident during his cross-examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted in alternative that the appellant has remained in custody for last 6 years out of sentence of 7 year$, therefore the sentence be modified. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances, discussed above, I do not find that any lenient view may be taken. Accordingly, I find no merit in the appeal. In the result, this appeal is dismissed.