D.P.SINGH, J. - (1.) BOTH the appellants stand convicted for the offences punishable under Ss. 376/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for ten years and seven years respectively and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000.00 on each count and in defend thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each, by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Case No. 57 of 2000/22 of 2000.
(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this appeal are that informant Mangli Paharin had gone to Boarijore "Haat" in the afternoon of 23.3.2000 along with one Bara Sundari Paharin. Further stated, when both of them went to take laudi, appellant Mangal Pahariya along with co -convict dragged hot towards his house situated east of "Haat" and thereafter confining inside Khumbha repeatedly raped her. The informant became unconscious and later on found herself near her village bleeding for profusely. She was located by her undo and aunt, P.W.1 and P.W.2 in the afternoon of 24.3.2000 and brought to her house. The matter was reported to Boarijore Police same evening at 8.30 P.M., on the basis of which Boarijore Police Station Case No. 34 of 2000 under Sections 376 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellants. The police investigated the case and submitted charge -sheet against both of them. The case of the appellants was committed to the Court of Sessions where charge under Sections 376/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against them. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed false prosecution duo to pressure put upon appellant Mangal Pahariya by the informant to marry her. However, the learned trial court after examining the witnesses found and held the appellants guilty on both counts to sentence them as mentioned aforesaid.
(3.) THE appellants have remained in custody all along in jail and completed nearly seven years as on today. The main grounds raised in this appeal are that appellant Mangal Pahariya was under pressure to marry the informant who was living with him for last three to four years. It is also submitted that when he refused to oblige the informant, this false case has been lodged. It is further submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge under Sec. 376 as well as Sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants. According to Mr. Mahabir Prasad Sinha, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant, the medical report does not support the allegation that the informant was subjected to rape. It is also submitted that the external injuries found on the informant also do not show that the offence under Sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code has been committed. It was submitted that if two persons as per prosecution case tried to cause death of the informant, she must have received serious and visible injuries to show that the intention was to cause death whereas the external injures were superficial in nature and may have caused due to fall after taking wine or taudi by the informant. Learned Amicus Curiae further submitted that neither place of occurrence has been established nor the incident has been proved beyond doubts.;