HARI SHANKAR PRASAD, J. - (1.) THIS Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30th September, 1996 and order of sentence dated 3.10.1996 passed by Session Judge in Session Trial No. 417/95/90/95 whereby and whereunder the sessions Judge convicted both the appellants, namely, Karu Hazra and Dina @ Dina Hazra and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 7 years under Section 376(i)/34, IPC and they have been further sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year each under Section 448 and the Sessions Judge directed both the sentences to run concurrently.
(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that Raso Kumari gave a fardbeyan in her village, which was recorded by S.I. Rahman Khan on 28.3.1995 at 2.00 p.m. to the effect that in between the night of 27 -28th March, 1995 at about 12.00 hrs when she along with her mother after taking meal was sleeping in a room, co -villager Karu Hazra and Dina Hazra entered into the room after making hole on the roof and appellant Karu Hazra pressed her mouth and dragged her to an adjacent room. Dina Hazra showed a chhura to her mother and asked her to maintain silence otherwise, she will be killed. Appellant Karu Hazra made Raso Kumari to lie on the ground and committed rape on her. she did not raise alarm due to fear of life. Blood started oozing out from her private part and sometime thereafter, both of them fled away after opening the door. Raso Kumari and her mother raised alarm after the accused fled away, where upon several co -villagers assembled. Next day, her pant was washed away by her mother, as there was no other pant for her. On the basis of that fardbeyan of Raso Kumari, a case under Section 376, IPC was registered and police after investigation, submitted the charge -sheet, cognizance in the case was taken and after commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions, the case came to the Court of Sessions Judge for favour of trial and disposal. In the trial Court, both the appellant were charged under Sections 376/34 and 448, IPC. From the trend of statements recorded under Section 313, Cr PC and from the trend of cross -examination of the prosecution witnesses, it appears that there is total denial of occurrence and false implication of appellants by the informant and her mother.
(3.) IN this case, altogether 8 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution to prove its case. PW 1 is Raso Kumari. She is the informant and the victim girl. PW 2 is Ghaltu Hazra @ Ghotu Hazra, he has been declared hostile and he has not supported the prosecution case. PW 3 is Ghutlu Hazra, he too has been declared hostile by the prosecution and he has also not supported the prosecution case. PW 4 is Jadu Hazra, he has also been declared hostile and he has not supported the prosecution case. PW 5 is Kewal Hazra, he has also been declared hostile. PW 6 is the mother of the informant and PW 7 is lady doctor, who had examined PW 1. PW 8 is I.O. of the case.;