AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 2.4.1992 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka, in Sessions Case No. 388/1990/81/1990, whereby the appellant Gobardhan Marandi was convicted for committing the offence under Section 376, Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of five years.
(2.) THE prosecution case, in short, is that in the night of 24.1.1990 the informant PW 3 was sleeping on her 'Verandah '. At that time a man came and all on a sudden by removing her attire started committing rape on her. She protested at which the accused gagged her mouth. In the light of "Dhlbari" which was burning, she identified that person as the appellant Gobardhan Marandi. When the appellant allegedly removed his hand from her mouth of the informant then it is said that she raised truth taking the name of the appellant. At this her father, who was sleeping nearby, woke up and came running towards her and then the appellant started fleeing away from there but he, while fleeing away fell down and then he was caught hold of by her father and was brought to the house of "Gurait" (Head) of the village namely Kalicharan Hembrom. The "Gurait" kept the appellant in his house for the whole night and, thereafter, in the next morning panchayati was held and it is said that during the panchayati itself the appellant fled away. Thereafter, the FIR was lodged by the informant. The appellant claimed to be innocent and pleaded that he was falsely implicated in this case due to enmity in collusion with Pradhan of the village. In order to establish the charge, on behalf of the prosecution six witnesses were examined. Out of them PW 1 Kalicharan Hembrom is the "Gurait" of the village. PW 2 Babulal Kisku is the father of the informant. PW 3 Dhanmuni Kisku is the informant herself. PW 4 Pushpalata Tudu is the Doctor, who examined the victim girl. PW 5 Lalu Kisku is the brother of the informant and PW 6 is Md. Jabbar Khan a formal witness. The Investigating Officer was not examined by the prosecution.
(3.) FROM the evidence of the Doctor, Pushpalata Tudu (PW 4) it appears that she did not find any external or internal injury on the person of the victim. Even no injury was found on her private part. Her hymen showed old tear. No injury or foreign hair was found around her private part. Even on microscopical examination, no spermatozoa was found. On radiological examination the victim was found to be below 19 years of age. No definite opinion about rape was given by the Doctor. The occurrence is said to have been taken place in the night of 24.1.1990 and the victim girl was medically examined on 26.1.1990.;