- (1.) BOTH the appellants named above have preferred these appeals against the impugned judgment and order dated 01.08.2002 and 02.08.2002 respectively passed in Sessions Trial No. 326 of 2001 by Shri Prabhu Tiwary, Special Judge -cum -Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi whereby.and whereunder they were found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (g) of the Indian Penal Code and they were convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years each. Both the appeals are hereby disposed of by this judgment.
(2.) THE prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the fardbeyan (Ext. 1) of P.W. 3, Lalo Kumari, the informant who is an unmarried woman aged about 21 years and alleged to be the victim of ravishment in this case recorded on 12.12.2000 at about 22.00 hours in the village Barway Barsati by S.I., Shri PR. Sharma, O.C. Ormanjhi P.S. regarding the occurrence which is said to have taken place on that very day at 19.30 hours in a bamboo clump between.village Dahu and Buribagi, PS. Ormanjhi District Ranchi and a case under Section 323 and 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code was instituted against both the appellants by drawing a formal F.I.R. on the following day at 01.30 hours which was received on 14.12.2000 in the court empowered to take cognizance. According to the prosecution case as averred in Ext. 1, P.W. 3, the informant works as a daily wage labourer in the construction of a building at Ranchi along with others including P.W. 5, Sita Devi and due to the late hours of the work. P.W. 5, Sita Devi missed the train for going to her house situate in village Bargawo, P.S. Namkom and at the instance of the informant she accompanied her for her house on a trekker and they came to Ormanjhi and got down from the trekker and by that time it has become dark. It is alleged that the informant also purchased eggs at the Block Chowk Ormanjhi and from there the informant in the company of P.W. 5, Sita Devi proceeded for their village on foot and when they were in between villages Dahu and Buribagi they met both the appellants who started teasing them and on being told that they will report against them at their respective houses, both the appellants allowed them to proceed ahead. It is alleged that when the informant and P.W. 5, Sita Devi proceeded further and when they reached near a lonely place in between the aforesaid villages, both the appellants came there and restrained them from going ahead and both the appellants caught the informant and took her inside the bamboo clump away from the road where they ravished the informant one by one in spite of the protest made by P. W. 5, Sita Devi. It is also alleged that the informant had attempted to raise alarms but her mouth was gagged and she was intimidated and also slapped. The prosecution case further is that after ravishing the informant appellant Suresh Mahto took P.W. 5, Sita Devi with him to some other place and he has also ravished Sita Devi aforesaid and during that period appellant Mahaveer Mahto was ravishing the informant. Lastly it has been alleged that after ravishing the informant Mahaveer Mahto attempted to escape away and at that moment she raised an alarm on which P.W. 1, Jogendra Mahto and P.W. 2, Hari Mahto besides other persons came there who were told about the occurrence.
(3.) BOTH the appellants have pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against them and they claim themselves to be innocent and to have committed no offence and that they have been falsely implicated in this case by the informant at the instance of Jogeshwar Thakur, the mukhiya of the village due to enmity which was existing and alive between appellant Suresh Mahto on the one hand and the Mukhiya on the other hand as the appellant Suresh Mahto was appointed as village Postmaster and the candidature of the son of Mukhiya was rejected.;