Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1055 (JHR)

Manoj Bhuiya v. State of Jharkhand

2009-07-29

PRADEEP KUMAR

body2009
JUDGMENT By Court.-This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 14.5.2002 and order of sentence dated 16.5.2002 passed by Shri Binay Kumar Sahay. Additional Sessions Judge-XIII, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 48 of 2000, by which judgment, he found the sale accused namely Manaj Bhuiya guilty for the offence under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code and convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. The prosecution case was started on the basis of fardbeyan given by the informant, Jamuna Bhuiya. who is the father of the victim girl, on 26.4.1999, stating therein that he is working as a ‘majdoor’' in South Belhari Colliery, Tola Bihibari situated at Village-Bhaga Bandh, P.S.-Putki When he returned from his work in the night at about 8 P.M then his wife Radhiya Bhuini informed him that his neighbour, the accused, Manoj Bhuiya came near the house and took his minor daughter namely Saraswati Kurnarr @ Gorki, aged about six years, towards east of his house about 500 yards and committed rape upon her. Since, the girl was minor, due to his commission of rape, the victim girl suffered bleeding injury from her private parts. His wife waited for him to come back from the work, then the informant immediately informed the people in the vicinity and all advised him to search out the accused. Then, he searched the accused, but, could not found the accused, then, he came to the police station, on the advice of the neighbors, and lodged the F.I.R. 3. On the basis of the said fardbeyan, police registered a case under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation police submitted a charge-sheet against the accused person under the aforesaid section. 4. Since, the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate, after taking cognizance, committed the same to Court of Sessions and lastly the case was tried by Shri Binay Kumar Sahay, Additionai Sessions Judge-XIII, Dhanbad, who found the appellant guilty under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no eye witness of the occurrence and the evidence of the victim girl is not actual. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no eye witness of the occurrence and the evidence of the victim girl is not actual. The investigation is also not proper, and as such, the appellant deserves acquittal in the case. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer of the counsel for the appellant and submitted that all the prosecution witnesses have supported the case, and even, the doctor. P.W. 7 has found injury on the private part of the victim girl, and as such, the prosecution has fully proved the charges levelled against the accused. 7. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and after going through the evidences on record, I find that the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses. 8. P.W. 1 is the informant, Jamuna Bhuiya. P.W. 2 is the informant's wife, Radhiya Devi. P.W. 3 is Shanti Bhuini. P.W. 4 is Dhanu Bhuiya. P.W. 5 is the victim girl, Saraswati Kumari @ Gorki. P.W. 6 is Chand Muni. P.W. 7 is Dr. Laxmi Pandey, the doctor, who has examined the victim girl and P.W. 8, Binod Kr. Singh is the Investigating Officer of this case. 9. From the evidence of the witnesses, it appears that the informant and his wife i.e. P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, both have supported the prosecution case and stated that about one year four months back, the accused namely Manoj Bhuiya committed rape upon their minor daughter Saraswati Kumari @ Gorki. They prove the fardbevan and also identified the accused in court. They were not cross-examined by the defence. P.W. 3, Shanti Bhuini is the own Jethani of the wife of the informant and hearsay witness and she stated that she came to know about the occurrence from the mother of the victim girl. She stated that on enquiry, the victim girl stated her that she was taken by the accused, Manoj Bhuiya, who committed rape upon her. P.W. 5, the victim girl has also stated that on the date of occurrence, when she was playing outside her house, the accused lifted her to jungle and committed rape upon her. At Para 7, in her cross-examination, she submitted that she has received some injury also during playing. P.W. 6 is Chand Muni, who was declared hostile. P.W. 5, the victim girl has also stated that on the date of occurrence, when she was playing outside her house, the accused lifted her to jungle and committed rape upon her. At Para 7, in her cross-examination, she submitted that she has received some injury also during playing. P.W. 6 is Chand Muni, who was declared hostile. P.W. 7 is the doctor, who proved the medical evidence. as Ext.-1, and found inflammatory sign over the vagina and vaginal orifice by the sides of labia menorah' and around the clitoris and she also found the hymen ruptured. P.W. 8, Binod Kr. Singh, the Investigating Officer has stated that on 25.4.1999, the informant came with the victim girl. He saw that the victim girl was bleeding from her private part and he sent her to doctor for medical examination. He examined the witnesses and filed the charge-sheet in the case. Further, he stated in his cross-examination that he has not seized the cloths of the victim girl. 10. From the evidences discussed above, I find that the prosecution has proved the charges levelled against the accused beyond reasonable doubts and the defence has not entered in any defence. It appears from the evidence that P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 were not cross-examined. However, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4, who were cross-examined, stated in defence that there was some quarrel between the victim's mother and the accused. Except that, there is no defence and there is no other ground for false accusation by the accused. In that view of the matter, I find no merit in this appeal. The same, is accordingly, dismissed. 11. It appears that the appellant was not granted bail and he has been in jail right from the beginning i.e. from the date of occurrence and thus he has remained in jail custody for more than ten years. The trial court will verify the same and if the appellant has not been released, he will direct his release, since, he has already undergone the sentence passed by Shri Binay Kumar Sahay, Additional Sessions Judge-XIII, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 48 of 2000. 12. With the aforesaid observation, this appeal is dismissed.