- (1.) THE sole appellant Nand Kishore Mahto stands convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years, by the 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti in Sessions Trial No. 379 of 1994.
(2.) BRIEFS facts leading to this appeal are that in the evening of 26.1.1994, the informant Bilasi Devi had gone to ease herself in an orchard, situated at village Kerakola, Police Station -Murhu. It is further stated that the appellant came there and caught hold of her. Further alleged that he gagged the informant and committed rape upon her. The informant returned to her house and narrated the incident to the family members. The matter was reported on the next morning to Murhu police, which recorded the statement of the informant and registered Murhu Police Station Case No.4 dated 27.1.1994 under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. The police investigated the case and finally submitted charge -sheet against the appellant. The case was committed for trial by the Court of Sessions where appellant was charged for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed false prosecution. After examining the witnesses, the trial court found and held the appellant guilty and sentenced him for the offence alleged to serve rigorous imprisonment for seven years.
(3.) THE present appeal has been preferred on the grounds that the learned lower court has committed error by not considering the defence of false prosecution even on the material brought on record by D.W. 1. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the informant has filed two affidavits in the lower court stating therein that she has not been raped but lodged the first information report at the instigation of her father vide Ext. A. It is further asserted that in absence of any medical evidence to support the prosecution story regarding injuries on the victim, externally or internally, the whole prosecution should have been discarded. Some minor contradictions have also been brought to notice of this Court that the conduct of the prosecutrix was not natural, rather, supporting defence version.;