AJIT KUMAR SINHA, J. - (1.) THE present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.9.200.1 and 3.10.2001 respectively, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Godda, in Sessions Trial No. 16 of 2000, whereby, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the said offence.
(2.) THE case of the prosecution, in brief, is set out as under: - On 9.9.1999 the victim Premlata Tudu alongwith her sister Pusplata Marandi were returning from Chandna Hatiya at around 5.00 p.m. in a jeep. They came down from the jeep at about 6.00 p.m. at Bathantarn where they met the accused appellant Sonalal Hansda. The Informant and her sister Pusplata Marandi were having vegetables in a bag and the accused appellant proposed to carry the vegetables in his bicycle and, accordingly, they gave the bag to the accused -appellant to be carried in the bicycle. Further case of the prosecution is that both the sisters went to Village Sundarmore Sarak Tola to the house of Mery Kisku, their relative, and demanded a torch from her but her nephew Haradhan Marandi agreed to accompany them and actually he accompanied them. On the way, the accused -appellant asked Haradhan Marandi to return back and gave assurance that he will reach them safely to their house. Accordingly, Haradhan Marandi returned back. Thereafter, when they reached near Tala Garha river at around 6.45 p.m., the accused -appellant stopped the bicycle on stand and caught hold of the arm of the informant and forcibly started pulling her towards the jungle. Both the victim and her sister started crying but the accused -appellant terrified the sister of the informant with a stone and threatened her, which compelled Pusplata Marandi to run away from the place of occurrence and, thereafter, the accused appellant floored down the victim (informant) and forcibly committed rape on her. It is also the case of prosecution that when the informant tried to raise alarm, she was slapped by the accused -appellant. The prosecution has also stated that some semen was stained on the petticoat of the informant due to the rape committed on her. Thereafter, the accused -appellant fled away on his bicycle and the prosecutrix raised an alarm which led the villagers, namely, Benisan Hansda, Suleman Soren, Luis Tudu and Una Besra assemble there but by that time the appellant had already fled away towards the jungle. The informant alongwith the villagers went to Sundermore Mission where the accused was working but the accused appellant had not returned back. The informant, accordingly, returned back to her house and due to late night she reported the matter to the police station on the next morning and, accordingly, the written report was lodged by the victim (informant) on 10.9.1999 on the basis of which the present case was registered and after investigation charge -sheet was filed. In order to prove the charge levelled against the accused/appellant, the prosecution has examined altogether six witnesses, namely, PW -1, Benison Hansda, PW -2, Luis Tudu, PW -3, Sushi Peter Tudu, PW -4, Pusplata Marandi, PW5, Premlata Tudu (the informant herself) and P.W. 6, Dr. Lili Singh. The first three witnesses are the independent witnesses who were the villagers of Village Sundarmore. PW -1, however, has been declared hostile and the other independent witnesses -have not supported the prosecution story. According to PW -1, Premlata Tudu, the victim, had told him that the accused -appellant, Son alai Hansda, had committed rape on her. As per the prosecution case, the evidence of PW -4, Pusplata Marandi, who was the eye witness of the occurrence, and PW -5, Premlata Tudu, the victim herself, is of much importance. P.W. 6 is Dr. Lili Singh, who examined the informant on 10.9.1999 at about 11.30 a.m. and according to her, there was no extraordinary injury and she (the doctor) did not find any spermatozoa on the vaginal swab of the prosecutrix nor any mark of violence was found on her person. She has also stated that there was no foreign hair on her private part but at the same time as per the medical report, sexual intercourse took place, which cannot be ruled out.
(3.) EVEN as per the medical report of the doctor, it appears that the prosecution produced semen stained petticoat.;