D.P.SINGH, J. - (1.) SOLE appellant Guddu Sanicharwa Maharaj @ Guddu Sharma stands convicted on being tried for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/ -, and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and one year for the offence under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code, by the Additional Judicial Commissioner -cum -Special Judge No. II, CBI (AHD), Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 349 of 1996. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this appeal are that informant Rinki Kumari was inside her house when the appellant at 6.00 p.m. arrived and asked her regarding whereabouts of her mother. As soon as, she informed him that her mother had gone to fetch milk, the appellant forcible took her inside the room and committed rape upon her. The informant was further threatened by the appellant not to disclose this fact to any one otherwise her whole family would be finished. However, when her mother (PW 4) arrived at 7.00 p.m., she narrated the entire incident. The informant further stated that due to alleged threatening, they did not report the matter to police immediately. Later on, the informant and her family members gathered courage and her statements were recorded by police on 20.3.1996 at 14.45 hours at Sukhdeo Nagar Police Station. The police registered Sukhdeo Nagar Police Station Case No. 115 of 1996 under Sections 376 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code and investigated the case. The informant was sent for medical examination on 20.3.1996 itself by PW 7. The police finally submitted charge -sheet against the appellant who was charged by the trial Court on 1st of August, 1997 under Sections 376 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed false prosecution. However, the learned trial Court after examining the witnesses, both prosecution and defence, found and held the appellant guilty for the offence under Sections 376 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as aforesaid.
(3.) THIS appeal has been preferred on the grounds that the learned trial Court has committed a mistake by accepting the prosecution version, which was brought before the police after more than a month. It is also submitted that the medical report does not support the allegation and in absence of supporting circumstances and evidence, the conviction of the appellant was fit to be set aside. Mr. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant stressed that even her parents have also not supported the prosecutrix. Therefore, the impugned judgment is fit to be set aside.;