VISHNUDEO NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been directed at the instance of the appellant against the impugned judgment and order dated 26.8.1998 passed in Sessions Trial No. 85 of 1997 by Shri P.N. Yadav, Sessions Judge, Dhanbad whereby and whereunder the appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.
(2.) THE prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the Fardbeyan (Ext. 1) of informant, Mala Bauri said to be the al - leged victim of ravishment recorded by S.I. Jamuna Ram, In -charge of Panchet Out -post within Chirkunda Police Station, District - Dhanbad at the said outpost on 27.12.1996 at 19.40 hours regarding the occurrence which is said to have taken place on that very day at 19.00 hours in the official residence allotted to her husband P.W.2 Banshi Bouri at Panchet M.H.T. bearing Quarter No. 15 in D.V.C. Colony, Police Station -Chirkunda, District -Dhanbad and a case was instituted by drawing of a formal first information report (Ext.2) against the appellant. The formal first information report and the Fardbeyan have been received on 28.12.1996 in the Court empowered to take cognizance. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant was alone in her house at the time of the occurrence and her elder son Suresh Bauri and her two daughters P.W.3 Saguri Bouri and P.W. 5 Jayanti Bouri had gone to Panchet stadium for photography and her husband P.W.2 Banshi Bouri had gone to the market and her younger son P.W.4 Naresh Bouri was playing outside her house. It is alleged that the appellant, who is the resident of Panchet, entered in her house under intoxication and he forcibly caught her and when she attempted to raise alarms he stuffed her mouth and felled her on the ground and ravished her. It is further alleged that in course of ravishment, her sons, namely, P.W.4 Naresh Bouri and Suresh Bouri came there and they raised alarms on which Tej Bahadur, Raha and Radha Devi, residents of the first floor of the said house came there and they have all seen her wearing petticoat and blouse only and they all attempted to apprehend the appellant but he made good his escape.
(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 to feed fad her grudge and annoyance in view of the fact that he has made complaint against her regarding the sale of illicit liquor as well as her being a woman of easy virtues.;