The State of Jharkhand v. For the State

Mr. Kumar Nilesh, Advocate Mr. Naveen kr. Gaunjhu, APP Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State.

1. The instant Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated

13.01.2012 and order of sentence dated 18.01.2012, passed by learned District & Sessions Judge-II, Dhanbad, in Session Trial No.280 of 2010 (arising out of Nirsa [Kalubathan O.P.] P.S. Case No.76 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No.983 of 2010), whereby the sole appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo RI for seven years and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default thereof, further to undergo R.I. for three months.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief, as set out in the FIR [which was registered on the basis of fardbeyan of the prosecutrix recorded on 14.03.2010 at 14:30 hours] is that on

13.03.2010 at about 3.30 PM., she had gone to the forest area for grazing her goat when the accused/appellant taking advantage of her being alone committed rape with her. It is alleged that she was dragged into the bushes and after rape, he fled away from the place of occurrence.

3. After the incidence the victim returned home. On that day, her husband was not there as he had gone to the village haat in the evening and when he returned, she narrated about the incidence to him and he along with some co-villagers went to the house of the appellant/accused. Appellant was not at home, the father of the appellant/accused expressed his helplessness as his son has committed the offence. When at night, her husband along with her brother, (P.W.4- Rajendra Prasad) went to the house of the appellant they were assaulted by accused, Shankar Rai, Shyam Pado Rai and others. They also damaged his motorcycle.

4. On the fardbeyan' of prosecutrix, the Police instituted First Information Report being Nirsa [Kalubathan O.P.] P.S. Case No.76 of 2010 and the Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused person(s) under Sections 376, 147, 341, 323 2 and 504 IPC. The accused, Shankar Ram, Shyampado Rai, Jatin Rai, Ghaltu Rai and Pratham Rai were charged under Sections 376/ 147/ 341/ 323/ 34 and 504 IPC whereas accused/ appellant, Prahlad Rai was charged under Section 376 IPC including other sections.

5. Learned Trial Court has convicted all the accused persons of the offences charged. Accused/ appellant, Prahlad Rai was convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC for 7 years and fine amount whereas other accused persons were given the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offender’s Act and were released on execution of the bonds.

6. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant/accused is assailed on the ground that the oral account of the prosecutrix has not been corroborated by the medical evidence. It is submitted in this regard that as per the case of the prosecution, the prosecutrix in the incidence has sustained scratches, but the Doctor has not noted any external or internal injury. The Medico-legal-examination report has been adduced into the evidence and marked as Exhibit-2 wherein no injury has been found. It is submitted that in view of the inconsistency between medical evidence and the oral evidence, the appellant is entitled to get the benefit of doubt in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following cases :- (a) (b) (c)