Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 397 (JHR)

Prakash Rao v. State of Jharkhand

2009-03-19

PRADEEP KUMAR

body2009
JUDGMENT : On repeated calls nobody appears on behalf of the appellants. On the request of Court, Sri I.N. Gupta, Advocate agreed to assist the court on behalf of the Appellant. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 4th August, 2001 passed by Sri Sita Ram Mahato, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella, in Sessions Trial No.116 of 2000, by which judgment, he convicted both the appellants under Section 376 of the Indian penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years separately. 3. The prosecution case was started on the basis of Fard beyan given by Sunita Karmkar on 18.11.1999 at about 21:30 hours to S.I. R.R. Singh at R.I.T. Campus, stating therein that she works as a labourer in TISCO factory and everyday at 6. A.M. in morning she leaves her house for TISCO factory and after completing her duty in the evening at about 6 P.M. she returns to her house and her husband runs a mess in R.I.T. Hostel. On that day she left her house at 6 A.M. for the duty and after completing her duty in the evening she came by bus to Adityapur Share-Punjab Hotel Chowk and after purchasing vegetable between 6 to 7 P.M. when she was going back to her house, then two boys of her neighbouring tola namely Prakash Roy and Dablu Mahto came near her and started teasing her. When she asked them not to misbehave with her, then they started giving threat to her and when she reached near Share-Punjab Chowk, then both the boys caught hold of her and take her at a Tempo and asked the Tempo driver to proceed towards R.I.T. campus, when she started making hulla from the tempo whereupon Prakash Roy and Dablu Mahto closed her mouth and said that if she makes hulla then they will strangle her to death. When she did not stop making hulla then they closed her mouth and brought her to RTI campus. The tempo driver left the place immediately after leaving them, then both accused took her to the Patas Jungle. When she did not stop making hulla then they closed her mouth and brought her to RTI campus. The tempo driver left the place immediately after leaving them, then both accused took her to the Patas Jungle. She started weeping, then Parkash Rao and Dabloo Mahto committed rape upon her and after committing rape, they threatened her that if she discloses the occurrence to anybody, then they will kill her, thereafter living her in a lonely Jungle, they ran away. From there she came to the police station and gave her statement. On the basis of the said fard beyan, the police registered a case under Sections 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the both accused persons. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Session, learned Magistrate, after going through the case, committed charge under the aforesaid sections. 4. In course of trial, prosecution has examined five witnesses. P.W.1 is the victim lady, Sunita Karmakar, P.W.2 is Rampado Karmakar is the husband of the victim lady P.W.3 is Sarad Chandra Mahato, P.W.4 is Rakesh Ranjan Singh, Sub-inspector, the Investigating Officer of the case and P.W.5 is Manorama Sidihesh, the doctor, who examined the victim lady, learned Trial Court after hearing the parties and going through the evidences found the appellants guilty as aforesaid. (i) The main witnesses of the case is the victim lady herself and who has examined as P.W.1 fully supported the prosecution case and in her fard beyan, she stated that on the date of occurrence, when she was returning from duty between 6 to 7 P.M. then near Share-Punjab Chowk, both the accused started misbehaving with her and when she protested them, then they put her in a tempo and took her to R.I.T. Campus, thereafter, they left the tempo and took her to a jungle, when she made hulla nobody came there to save her. She pleaded for pardon from both the accused, but both the accused assaulted her and thereafter committed rape upon her. In her cross-examination, she stated in para-5 that while both the accused persons took her in a tempo and when she made hulla for help, nobody came to help her. Both the accused had closed her mouth and neck. She pleaded for pardon from both the accused, but both the accused assaulted her and thereafter committed rape upon her. In her cross-examination, she stated in para-5 that while both the accused persons took her in a tempo and when she made hulla for help, nobody came to help her. Both the accused had closed her mouth and neck. She also stated that she had given her cloth, what she was wearing at the time of occurrence and the same was seized by the police. (ii) P.W.2-Rampad Karmkar, who is the husband of the victim lady has also supported the prosecution case and submitted that on the date of occurrence, when he came to his house, at 10:30 P.M., his wife told him about the occurrence and he went to the police station along with her, where her statement was recorded and he also signed in the said fard beyan. He proved his signature in the fard beyan as exhibit-1. (iii) P.W.3, Sarad Chandra Mahato proved the formal F.I.R. (iv) P.W-4-Rakesh Ranjan Singh who is the Investigating Officer of the case has proved the fard beyan recorded by him as exhibit-3. He also proved the seizure of the victim’s petticoat as exhibit4. He stated that the occurrence took place in the R.I.T. Campus, Main Road on the south of jungle side. He gave details of the place of occurrence and after investigation submitted charge-sheet, which supports the evidence of prosecutrix P.W.1 and as corroborated by the P.W.2 and P.W.3. (v) P.W.5 is doctor, Manorama Sidihesh who has examined the victim lady on 19.11.1999 at 2:30 P.M, found no injury on the person of the victim lady, nor she found any sign of rape, however, since there is no evidence that there is enmity between the prosecutrix or her husband and the accused persons, P.W.1 did not mislead the occurrence in her fard beyan and also in court and supported by the Investigating Officer, which is very much convincing and acceptable and there is no occasion that the victim lady implicated falsely the two accused person, who commit rape upon her while she was returning from Tisco factory. 5. 5. In view of the matter, I find that there is sufficient evidence to prove the charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and both the accused have rightly been convicted and found guilty under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. It appears from the record that after admission of the appeal on 21.1.2001, no bail was granted to the appellants and they have remained in jail for more than seven years and served out the sentence, passed by Trial Court. The learned Trial Court will verify the same and if the entire sentence was served out then pass appropriate and necessary orders. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.