Pradeep Kumar, J. - (1.) BY Court: Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel for the state.
(2.) THE instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 7.6.2001 and order of sentence dated 13.6.2001 passed by Sri Sharang Dhar Singh, 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 346 of 1999 by which judgment the appellant has been found guilty for the offence Under Section 376 of the I.P.C and convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ - and in default, further S.I. for 5 years. He was further convicted for the offence Under Section 420 of the I.P.C and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/ - and in default of payment of fine S.I. for 2 years. The aforesaid sentences were directed to run concurrently, however, in default of payment of fines imposed as aforesaid, both the period of sentence will run consecutively. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that the prosecution case has been lodged after a long delay of 4 months and as such the prosecution case is not reliable and it appears that subsequently, under the influence of some village politics the case has been lodged against the accused -appellant and he has falsely been implicated in this case. As such, the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant is bad in law and fit to be set aside. He has further submitted that it appears that due to the fact that the complainant is a widowed lady, the court out of sentiment has passed severe sentence against the appellant which is not in accordance in law and lenient view should have been taken considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the state has opposed the prayer and submitted that prosecution case has fully been supported by the evidence of two eye witnesses, P.W. 2 and 4 and also by the witnesses, who attended the Panchayati in the village and as such the prosecution has fully proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. As has been settled even the version of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the appellant for the offence charged and hence the finding requires no interference by this Court.;