- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellant named above against the impugned judgment and order dated 7.9.1990 passed in Sessions Case Nos. 152 of 1987/163 of 1989 by Shri A.C. Das, Third Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka at camp Jamtara whereby and whereunder the appellant was found guilty for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for six years.
(2.) THE prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the fardbeyan (Ext. 1) of PW 7, Rekha Turi, the informant and said to be the victim of ravishment in this case recorded by AS1, Yadu Paswan of Jamtara PS on 30.9.1986 at 15.00 hours at C.I. Office, Jamtara regarding the occurrence which is said to have taken place on 23.9.1986 at 12 O 'clock in the day in her house situate in village Amdiha where she is said to have been ravished by the appellant. The case was instituted by drawing of the formal FIR (Ext. 2) on 1.10.1986 at 16.00 hours. The prosecution case, in brief, is that PW 7, the informant was daubing the room of her house which is situated at a lonely place in the village and she was alone in her house and her husband had gone to Bengal. It is alleged that appellant Khublal Mahto who has criminal antecedent and also had been to jail on several occasions, entered in her house and closed the door of that house and, thereafter, he has ravished her. It is also alleged that she has raised alarms and the appellant, thereafter. fled away and the co -villagers besides chowkidar came there and they were informed about the occurrence. It is also alleged that the chowkidar, Kartik Mandal was asked to report the matter at the police station but he did not go there, The prosecution case further is that the husband of the informant came to her house from Bengal on Thursday i.e., 25.9.1986 and he was told about the occurrence by her and, thereafter, she went to the police station at 3 O 'clock in the day on that day and the Officer -in -Charge that he will come at her house to make enquiry but the police did not come and, thereafter, the informant went to the peputy Superintendent of Police but she could not meet him and from there she has come to this office where her fardbeyan has been recorded. It is also alleged that she has handed over her petticoat and sari alleged to have stains of semen thereof.
(3.) THE appellant has pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against him and he claims himself to be innocent and to have committed no offence and that he has been falsely implicated in this case in view of the enmity existing and alive between the parties prior to the alleged occurrence.;