D.N. Patel, A.C.J. - (1.) This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 8th June, 2010 and 10th June, 2010 respectively passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-V, West Singhbhum in Sessions Trial No. 268 of 2006, whereby, this appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.
(2.) The case of the Prosecution: The case of the prosecution is that on 21.08.2006 the informant Tisu Kayam gave written report to police that on 20.08.2006 (Sunday) at 12:00 noon he had gone to jungle for cutting grass and his wife had gone to field. His minor daughter Palomai Kayam aged about 4 years was at home. At 4:00 P.M., when informant came back to his house, he found his daughter weeping. When informant asked his daughter, then by indication she complained about the sexual intercourse done against her by Dibai Kayam (accused). The informant alleged that his daughter was fully naked and she took informant near a Mahua tree, where the alleged offence said to have taken place, but, he found nothing there. Thereafter informant along with his daughter went to the house of villager Dakua Pradhan Kayam and other villagers and informed them about the incident. After that, informant along with Dakua went to the house of Dibai Kayam and make enquiry about the incident, and then Dibai Kayam (accused) admitted that he had committed rape upon the minor girl of Tisu Kayam near a Mahua tree. Thereafter villagers caught hold Dibai Kayam and kept him in the house of Dakua. On the next day i.e. 21.08.2006, panchayat was held, where Dibai Kayam confessed that he had committed the offence, and then villagers brought Dibai Kayam to Police Station and handed over him to police. Seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution JUDGEMENT_89_LAWS(JHAR)2_2018_1.html
(3.) Arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant: • It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence of rape beyond reasonable doubt. • It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the whole conviction is based upon extra judicial confession and nothing beyond that. It is also submitted that the whole conviction is based upon the presumption and surmises by the learned trial court in view of the fact that even as per the medical evidence, no rape has been committed by this appellant. It is further submitted that extra judicial confession cannot be the basis for conviction, when there is no corroborative evidence before the learned trial court to that effect. It is thus submitted that these aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court and, hence, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court dated 8th June, 2010 and 10th June, 2010 respectively, in Sessions Trial No. 268 of 2006 deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is further submitted that even otherwise also, this appellant has neither been enlarged on bail during trial nor at the appellate stage the sentence awarded to him by the trial court has been suspended and is in judicial custody since 2006 and thus he has already undergone 10 years of imprisonment, by now.;