AJIT K.SINHA, J. - (1.) THE present appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31.5.2000 and 1.6.2000, passed in Sessions Trial No. 351 of 1999, arising out of Ormanjhi Police Station Case No. 18 of 1999, corresponding to G.R. No. 441 of 1999, whereby and III/hereunder, the learned 4th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, while acquitting the appellant for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code convicted him for the offence under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years alongwith a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for two years.
(2.) THE case of the prosecution is set out as under: - It appears that the victim Kunti Kumari, who was aged about 14 years, used to live in the residence of her brother -in -law Sukra Munda son of Jugal Munda, resident of Chhota Ulatu, Police Station Ormanjhi, District -Ranchi, for the purposes of undergoing her education. The victim Kunti Kumari was related as Sali of Sukra Munda, who is informant in the present case. Prior to her stay at the residence of Sukra Munda, the victim used to live with her father. The appellant -accused Islam Ansari alias Kherua son of Rahim Ansari, resident of Kannoj, Police Station -Ratu, District -Ranchi also used to live at Kuju with his father and the appellant -accused had acquaintance with the victim Kunti Kumari and he visited her residence on 22.2.1999. Later they went together towards the forest and the appellant -accused after inducing the victim Kunti Kumari took her away with an intention to have illicit intercourse. Later the informant searched for her but could not trace her and hence a First Information Report was registered on the basis of a written report for the offence under Sections 363N366/376 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. The matter was investigated by the prosecution and charge -sheet was filed for the offence under Sections 363N366/376 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and on the basis of the chargesheet cognizance of the offence was taken against the accused vide order dated 20.4.1999, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi and, accordingly, the case was transferred to the Court of Sri R.S. Sinha, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi, for commitment in accordance with law. As the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the same was committed to the Court of Sessions on 24.5.1999 and that is how the matter came up before the Court of learned 4th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, from the Court of learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi. At the time of framing of charges, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to prove the charge has examined as many as five witnesses. PW 1, Nooni Devi, is the wife of the informant Sukra Munda and sister of the victim Kunti Kumari. This witness has clearly stated in her examination -in -chief that the victim Kunti Kumari, aged about 14 years, used to live at her residence for schooling and education. During her stay, the accused used to visit her residence. This witness stated that the accused had enticed away her sister with the purpose of marriage and illicit intercourse with her. This witness has further stated that they did their utmost to find out her sister but ultimately she was not at all traceable, therefore, they informed the matter to the police concerned. She has eventually stated in her examination -in -chief that both the accused and victim Kunti Kumari had been caught when they had been seen by the Charwahas of the forest. This witness has also said in her examination -in -chief that her sister Kunti Kumari had told her that the accused had forcefully enticed her away. In paragraph 5 of her cross -examination this witness has said that the victim Kunti Kumari had herself taken poison and died. PW -2, Rajoo Munda, who claims to be the brother of the victim Kunti Kumari, has stated in his examination -in -chief that the accused after threatening this witness went away with his sister Kunti Kumari. This witness has also stated that they had vigorously searched the victim Kunti Kumari but she could not be traced out and ultimately after one month she had come back. This witness has identified the accused in the court. From the perusal of the cross -examination of this witness it appears that he has not fully supported the case of the prosecution. PW -3, Kaushalya Mundain, is the mother of the victim Kunti Kumari. She has also stated that her daughter Kunti Kumari was staying with her son -in -law (the informant) for her schooling and education. The accused used to visit the residence of her son -in -law (the informant Sukra Munda). She has categorically stated in her examination -in -chief "Mery damad ke yehan se Islam Ansari meri beti ko phuslakar tatha bhagakar le gaya tha". This witness has also stated in her examination -in -chief that the accused had taken away her daughter Kunti Kumari to 'Delhi and had seduced her there. This witness has also stated eventually in her examination -in -chief that "Ghatna ke kuch din baad meri beti mar gai. Chunki uskey saath balatkar huwa tha isliyay sharam ke marey usney upni atamhatiya kar li thi". Thus, from this statement it appears that the alleged enticement and rape with the victim Kunti Kumari was the root cause of her death. PW -4, Sukra Munda, is the informant and Bahnoee of the victim Kunti Kumari. The victim Kunti Kumari was the Sali of this witness. This witness has also stated in his examination -in -chief that the victim Kunti Kumari aged about 14 years was staying at his residence for her schooling education and the accused used to visit the residence of this witness and ultimately abducted her and forced her to illicit intercourse. This witness has also categorically stated that the accused had taken away the victim Kunti Kumari to Delhi and raped her repeatedly. This witness has proved his signature on the written report which has been marked Ext. 1. This witness has also stated that the victim Kunti Kumari had given her statement before the police under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This witness has also eventually stated in his exam ination -in -chief that "meri saali Kunti Kumari ko police ke bhi beyan huwa tha tatha Magistrate ke samney bhi uska beyan huwa tha meri saali beyan ke baad kutch dina ke baad balatkar ke chaltey shram ke marey zahar khaker mer gaee". This witness has also identified the accused in the court. PW -5, Madan Mohan Singh, A.S.I. Ormanjhi P.S., had investigated the case and after collecting sufficient positive material against the accused had submitted charge -sheet against him. This witness has proved the F.I.R. which has been marked Ext. 2. This witness has also stated that all the witnesses namely the informant, his' wife and the mother of the victim Kunti Kumari had supported the case of the prosecution during the course of investigation. This witness has also stated that both the victim Kunti Kumari and the accused had been caught together. This witness has also stated that the victim Kunti Kumari had also supported the case of the prosecution during the course of investigation and during the course of her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. This witness has also stated in paragraph no. 7 of his evidence that the victim Kunti Kumari had died during the course of investigation (para 59 of the police case diary) and U.D. Case No. 2/99 had been registered. Thus, this witness has fully supported the case of the prosecution.
(3.) THE learned trial court has held that contradictions in minor details cannot be regarded as very material or a positive proof of the authenticity of the witnesses and the whole case cannot be thrown out on that account. The learned trial court has looked into the broad outlines and main features of the case and the evidences to decide the involvement of the appellant in the alleged offence and on careful analysis and appreciation of the evidence, which was essential in the interest of justice, has held that admittedly there was no direct or indirect evidence' available on record to support the case of rape as alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, the alleged offence of rape was not believed in absence of evidence. But the evidences available on record clearly established that it was the appellant, who had induced the victim Kunti Kumari, who was under eighteen years of age and the victim Kunti Kumari was forced to illicit intercourse. ;