VIRENDER SINGH, J. - (1.) AT the very outset, it needs to be mentioned here that since the appellant was not in a position to engage any lawyer to defend his case by filing an appeal against the impugned judgment, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority provided the services of its panel lawyer. It is how the instant appeal was filed in this Court, in which there was delay of 1711 days, which stood condoned, vide order dated 14.01.2015 and, thereafter, the main appeal also admitted to hearing on 28.01.2015. Since it is a case falling under section 376 IPC, therefore, priority was given to it for its final consideration over and above other pending appeals.
(2.) APPELLANT Sona Ram Hembram (for short to be referred to as 'accused' only) aged 45 years was charged for the offence punishable under section 376 IPC for allegedly committing rape upon a girl (daughter of PW Smt. Menna Gope) who was hardly of the age 13 - 14 years on the alleged date of commission of offence. He now stands convicted for the said charge vide impugned judgment of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chaibasa, dated 2nd of July 2009 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and a fine of Rs.5000, in default thereof, to further undergo imprisonment for a period of 3 months.
(3.) WE have heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the accused and Md. Hatim, learned APP representing the State of Jharkhand. Although learned counsel for the appellant has not joined issue vis - -vis the merits of the appeal and confined his prayer only with regard to the reduction of substantive sentence submitting that the period already undergone by the accused till date which turns out to be 7 years 3 months and 16 odd days out of the total sentence of 10 years slapped upon him, vide impugned judgment, would meet the ends of justice, yet we being the court of first appeal, have rescanned the entire prosecution evidence and find that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused for the aforesaid charge beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. We have perused the statement of the victim very minutely, examined as PW 1 (name not being disclosed). The learned trial court should have also avoided disclosing the identity of the girl. We have chosen to describe her as 'the victim' in the judgment.;