AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. - (1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 24.9.2001 passed by the Sessions Judge, Palamau in S.T. No. 444 of 1999, whereby the learned Sessions convicted the appellant under Sections 341, 342, 201 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. He is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year each under Section 341 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code. However, no separate sentence was awarded for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. However, by the said judgment the learned trial Court acquitted the other three accused persons who were tried together with present appellant.
(2.) THE prosecution case in short is that on 26.8.1998 at about 2 p.m. while the informant Munni Kumari was going to call her father and when she reached in front of the house of the appellant, it is said that the appellant caught hold of her and took her to his cattle shed and thereafter forcibly raped. After committing rape, he locked the said cattle shed from outside. On hearing the screaming of the informant, mother of the appellant came there and opened the door after the people who assembled in the lane dispersed. Thereafter the informant went to her house and narrated the occurrence to her parent and brother. On the report of the father of the informant, Panchayat was held but the appellant and his father did not agree for the Panchayat and they did not attend the same. The appellant and others threatened the father of the informant and his family members with dire consequence, if the matter was reported to the police. Ultimately the report vas made to the police regarding the said occurrence after delay of more than a month i.e., 10.10.1998. In the FIR itself the victim Munui Kumari has stated her age to be 13 years. In order to prove the charges the pro sr.cution examined altogether 10 witnesses out of whom PWs 3, 4 and 5 were declared hostile, PWs 6 and 7 were tendered, PWs 1 and 2 are father and mother respectively PW 8 is the informant herself. PW 9 is the Doctor and PW 10 is the Investigating Officer.
(3.) AFTER careful consideration the materials on record, the trial Court con victed and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.;