- (1.)The appellant has been convicted for commission of offences punishable under sections 376 and 366 of the Indian penal Code, 1860 (in short "ipc") by the sessions judge, Samstipur and the said conviction has been upheld by the High court.
(2.)In a case where there are concurrent findings of fact, this Court will normally not examine evidence in order to find whether there are any infirmities, unless and until it is satisfied that grave miscarriage of justice has taken place and circumstances which were in favour of the accused have not been given due consideration and materials which are relevant have been ignored.
(3.)The case of the prosecution as unfolded during trial was that Pramila Devi (PW1) along with her sister-in-law and mother-in-law were sleeping in the house on 28th November, 1995. The accused ashok Kumar Jha allegedly entered the room after pushing the thatched enclosure, took Pramila Devi (PW1) in his lap and came out of the house. PW1 is then alleged to have seen that her sister in law Indira Devi (PW2) was picked up in lap by the other accused Tuntun Jha and also brought out of the hut. Both these ladies are alleged to have raised an alarm whereupon their mother-in-law got up; but she was caught hold of by accused ravindra Mishra and also the three ladies were then taken to an arhar field. It was in that field that Pramila Devi and indira Devi are alleged to have been raped, while the mouth of PW1's mother- in-law, Badami Devi (PW3) , was closed by some cloth, and accused Ravindra mishra had thus kept the said mother-in- law confined. It was further stated that at dawn they left the field and then they ran away fearing threat to their life. Subsequently, the villagers suggested that a complaint should be lodged whereupon the FIR was lodged in the police station on 9th December, 1995.