Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 970 (JHR)

Dinesh Ram v. State of Jharkhand

2010-10-06

PRADEEP KUMAR

body2010
JUDGMENT (1) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State. (2) THE instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 7.10.2002 and order of sentence dated 3.10.2002 passed in S. T. No. 27 of 2000 by Shri Dilip Kumar Sinha, Sessions Judge, Lohardaga, by which he found the sole appellant, Dinesh Ram guilty under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him R.I. for five years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- (One thousand) for his conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and in case of default of payment of fine, he is sentenced to undergo an additional period of imprisonment for six months. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no evidence of rape except the informant herself, who said to be alone at the place of occurrence which is far away from the village on hillock and the appellant has remained in custody during trial from 21.7.1999 till the appeal about three years and six months. Further, prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. (3) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that witnesses supported the prosecution case and doctor found recent sexual intercourse with the victim and as such, he has rightly been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. (4) AFTER hearing both the parties and going through the evidences on record, I find that prosecution case was started on the basis of F.I.R. was lodged by the prosecutrix, Sukarmani Orain (P.W. 1) on 13.7.1999 stating therein that on previous Sunday (11.7.1999) while she had gone with her niece Fulmatiya Orain for grazing ox to the hillock and they were grazing the ox on hillock. AFTER one hour Dinesh Ram came there on the pretext of grazing goat and after some time he sent Fulmatiya Orain with ox to the remote place and caught hold her from behind and forcibly laid down and committed rape after removing her saree. When she attempted to raise alarm she was threatened to be murdered. The occurrence took place at about 10.00 a. m. AFTER that she returned to house, but her husband was not there. When her husband returned back on the next day i.e. Monday at about 2 to 3 p.m. then she narrated about the occurrence to him. When she attempted to raise alarm she was threatened to be murdered. The occurrence took place at about 10.00 a. m. AFTER that she returned to house, but her husband was not there. When her husband returned back on the next day i.e. Monday at about 2 to 3 p.m. then she narrated about the occurrence to him. On the basis of the said fardbeyan, police registered a case under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation, police submitted charge-sheet in the case as aforesaid. Since, the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, after taking cognizance learned Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions and subsequently, the case was tried by learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga, who found the appellant guilty as aforesaid. (5) IT appears that in the course of the trial, the prosecution has examined as many as eleven witnesses. P.W. 1, Sukarmani Orain, is the informant/prosecutrix. P.W. 2. Fulmatia Orain. P.W. 3. Parmeshwar Oraon, is the husband of the prosecutrix. P.W. 4. Dashiya Oraon. P.W. 5. Manti Orain. P.W. 6. Pardeshiya Oraon. P.W. 7. Manna Oraon. P.W. 8. Dr. Kiran Marandi. P.W. 9. Arun Kumar Modi. P.W. 10 Shashi Bhushan Singh, is the Investigating Officer of the case. P.W. 11 Dr. Ganesh Prasad. P.W. 1, Sukarmani Orain, is the informant/prosecutrix, supported her statement given in the fardbeyan and stated that appellant committed rape upon her when he found her alone. In cross-examination she admitted that she had been working in the brick kiln with the accused Dinesh Ram for two years, but she had no friendship with him except acquaintances. She further stated that the place of occurrence was on the hillock and no-one was present there except she and her niece, Fulmatia Orain. Appellant caught hold her from back and forcibly laid down and committed rape upon her. P.W. 2. Fulmatia Orain is aged about nine years, stated that she was going to the hillock for grazing catties with her aunt and Dinesh came there with three goats. She tentatively seen the occurrence since, as per the direction of Dinesh she had gone from there for grazing the cattle. P.W. 3. Parmeshwar Oraon, is the husband of the prosecutrix, stated that he came to know about the occurrence on the next day of occurrence, when he returned to his house after purchasing the paddy. P.W. 4. She tentatively seen the occurrence since, as per the direction of Dinesh she had gone from there for grazing the cattle. P.W. 3. Parmeshwar Oraon, is the husband of the prosecutrix, stated that he came to know about the occurrence on the next day of occurrence, when he returned to his house after purchasing the paddy. P.W. 4. Dashiya Oraon is a hearsay witness. P.W. 5. Manti Orain is also a hearsay witness. P.W. 6. Pardeshiya Oraon is a hearsay witness. He came to know about the occurrence from his wife. P.W.7. Manna Oraon is a hearsay witness. He came to know about the occurrence from the prosecutrix. P.W.8. Dr. Kiran Marandi, examined the prosecutrix, who found that there was sign of recent sexual intercourse and the victim was aged about 17 to 18 years and spermatozoa was also found in her vagina. P.W.9. Arun Kumar Modi is a Bench Clerk in the Court of Chief Judicial Maigistrate, Lohardaga, who proved his signature as Ext- 2 in the statement of victim under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. P.W. 10 Shashi Bhushan Singh, is the Investigating Officer of the case. P.W. 11 Dr. Ganesh Prasad, is another doctor, who collected the blood sample of the under trial prisoner, Dinesh Ram prepared two slides of blood in glass, dried, and it was handed over to the Investigating Officer of the case. The Investigating Officer prepared a seizure list of the blood sample in two slides on his production and he put his signature on the production cum seizure list as Ext. 5. (6) AFTER considering the evidences, I find that the prosecutrix P.W. 1, Sukarmani Orain supported her case and other witnesses are hearsay witness. Doctor has found that there was sign of recent sexual intercourse and the victim was aged about 17 to 18 years and spermatozoa was also found in her vagina, but could not say that there was any injury on the any part of the body. She is a married lady and moreover, it is a case of single eyewitnesses and victim. She is a married lady and moreover, it is a case of single eyewitnesses and victim. P.W. 1 admitted that she used to graze her cattle with the accused even before this occurrence, in that view of the matter, I am confirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, but the sentence against the appellant is modified and reduced to the extent of the period of imprisonment i.e. about three years and six months, which the appellant has already undergone during trial and appeal. With the aforesaid alteration in conviction and sentence, the appeal is dismissed. Since, the appellant is on bail, he is released from the bondage of bail. Appeal dismissed.