- (1.) BOTH the appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 23rd December, 2000 and order of sentence dated 4th January, 2001 passed by the Sessions Judge, Gumla in Sessions Trial No. 185 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted under section 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years each.
(2.) BRIEF facts leading to their conviction are that in the morning of 10.4.1998 the informant Anita Kumar aged about 15 years was going to her school on bicycle alongwith -her friend Parvati Kumari from village Baranda Dipatoli, P.S. Bharno. Further stated that when she reached half way in between the school and her house near village Kadru Karang, P.S. Sisai the appellants overpowered the informant showing dagger. Further stated the appellant no. 2 Kuldip Kujur thereafter took away her bicycle while Parvati fled away. According to the informant then appellant no. 1 Dipeshwar Munda forcibly took her in the orchard and committed rape. The prosecution story is further that she was raped twice at the point of dagger. The informant returned to her house in disturbed condition and narrated the incident to her mother P.W. 1. The informant alongwith her father and brother went to police and orally reported which was recorded by Sisai Police at 12.15 hours at Block/Naka. Sisai police registered Sisai P.S. Case No. 42 of 1998 under section 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code against both the appellants and investigated the case to finally submit charge -sheet against them. The case was committed for trial by the court of sessions where charges were framed against both the appellants on 26.11.1998. The learned lower court after examining witnesses found and held both of them guilty under section 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to serve R.I. for ten years each.
(3.) THE present memo of appeal has been preferred on the grounds that the appellants were innocent and implicated falsely in this case. It is further asserted that learned trial court has not considered the contradictions available in the evidence of the witnesses. It is also asserted that except the informant no eye -witness has come to support her version. According to the appellants the non -examination of Parvati Kumari has materially prejudiced the defence. According to this memo of appeal the medical report does not support the prosecution version rather supports the defence that false prosecution was lodged. It is further asserted that even if the prosecution version is believed, appellant no. 2, Kuldip Kujur should not have been convicted, as he has not taken part in the alleged offence. Therefore the appellants deserve to be acquitted of the charges.;