D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) BY the impugned judgment dated 7.8.2004 passed by the Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Case No. 158 of 2003, both the appellants were convicted for offences under Sections 376 (2)(g) and 458 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Sec. 376(2)(g) of the Indiar Penal Code for a period of ten years and a fine of rupees twenty thousand and rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years with fine of rupees five thousand for the offence under Sec. 458 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) THE case against the appellants was registered on the basis of a written report dated 7.4.2003 submitted at the police station by the prosecutrix (PW4), aged about 17 years, alleging therein that on the night of 4.4.2003 she was sleeping in her room along with her five year old brother who was sleeping by her side. Her mother was not at home. At about 9.30 p.m. while she was sleeping, both the appellants intruded into her room by removing a portion of thatched roof of the house. They caught hold of the prosecutrix and gagged her mouth preventing her from raising alarms. Thereafter while the appellant Maha Hansda held her firmly by (sic) her hands on the ground, the appellant Tufan Soren committed rape on her. Thereafter both he appellants dragged her out of the room into the courtyard. At that time, the victim managed to raise alarms. Her aunt (PW 1) living next door came running on hearing her alarms and on seeing her (PW1), both the appellants fled away through the door of the boundary wall. The victim narrated the incident to PW 1 and to other neighbouring residents who had arrived at her house on hearing her alarms. The matter was reported to the Village Head for necessary action, but when no positive action was taken, the victim girl lodged her complaint at the police station. Both the appellants had denied the charges and pleaded not guilty. Their case in defence was of their false implication in the case on account of suspicion that they were instrumental in breaking the marriage negotiations of the victim which was earlier settled by her parents.
(3.) AS many as seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution at the trial. These witnesses besides others, include the prosecutrix (PW4), her aunt (PW1), brother (PW3), the doctor (PW7) who had examined the prosecutrix and the investigating officer (PW6).;