VISHNUDEO NARAYAN - (1.) This appeal at the instance of the appellant is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 22.5.1998 passed in Sessions Trial No. 14 of 1997 by Shri Kapileshwar Prasad, Sessions Judge, Giridih whereby and whereunder the appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376 (1) of the Indian Penal Code and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/ - and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Co -accused Jai Krishan Rai, Pramod Rai, Ranjit Rai and Janardan Rai were found guilty for the offence under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and they were released on due admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. However, co -accused Umesh Rai was not found guilty for the offence under Section 376 (1) of the Indian Penal Code and he was accordingly acquitted.
(2.) THE prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the written report (Ext. 2) of P.W.1 Jayanti Kumari, the informant, an unmarried girl aged about fifteen to sixteen years, alleged to be one of the victims of the ravishment in this case, lodged before Jamua Police Station on 20.5.1996 at 21.05 hours regarding the occurrence which is said to have taken place on 17.5.1996 at 15.00 hours on the bank of the river known as Nibro one kilometer north of village Badadhia, P.S. -Jamua, District -Giridih and also of the occurrence of the assault perpetrated on P.W.2 Gania Devi and other which is said to have taken place 17.00 hours on 20.5.96 in the said village and a case was instituted against the appellant and others by drawing of a formal first information report (Ext. 3) on 20.5.96 at 21.05 hours and the said formal first information report and the written report were received on 25.5.96 in the Court empowered to take cognizance. The prosecution case, in brief, is that informant Jayanti Kumari along with P.W.3 Dulari Devi, the wife of Chhapru Mahto had gone to the bank of the river situated north of her village to collect cowdung and they were collecting cow -dung there and in the meantime, appellant Vijay Rai along with acquitted co -accused Umesh Rai, both resident of village -Badadiha, came there and co -accused Umesh Rai caught her and appellant Vijay Rai caught P.W.3 Dulari Devi and they forcibly brought them on the bank of the said river where they felled them and appellant Vijay Rai ravished Dulari Devi after removing her clothes and co -accused Umesh Rai ravished her (Jayanti Kumari) after removing her clothes and when they attempted to raise alarms they intimidated them to be done to death and after satisfying their lust they went away to their respective houses. It is alleged that after the occurrence the informant and P.W.3 Dulari Devi came to their respective houses in the village and narrated the incident to their respective family members and it was decided in the village that there shall be a Panchayati in respect of the occurrence and due to that the informant and P.W.3 Dulari Devi did not come to the police station to report about the occurrence. It is further alleged that as a sequence to the said occurrence, the barbers of the village left doing shaving works of the members of the caste of Bhumihar Bhramins. The prosecution case further is that P.W.2 Gania Devi, the mother of the informant was returning to her house after making purchase from the shop of Lakhan Ram and co -accused Jai Krishna Rai, Janardan Rai, Ranjit Rai and Pramod Rai asked her as to why she does not send her daughter (the informant) to collect cow -dung and at this she retorted that she will cook on coal and she will not send her daughter for collecting cow -dung as you all misbehave with her and at this they abused P.W.2 Gania Devi and felled her on the ground by catching hold of her hair and when P.WA Kapadi Devi went to rescue her, she was also pushed as a result of which she fell down and sustained injury on her head. It is also alleged that P.W.6 Munshi Thakur also came there to rescue them and they also assaulted him. It is alleged that Hire Mahto, Karu Mahto, P.W.9 Kartik Thakur, Pravin Kumar and others came there and they intervened in the occurrence.
(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 he has been falsely implicated in this case due to caste rivalry prevailing in the village.;