PRADEEP KUMAR, J. - (1.) THE appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 19th January, 2002 passed by Shri Jai Govind Singh, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat, in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 1995, by which judgment he found the accused -appellant, Jamuna Nayak guilty under Sections 376 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 7 years under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and 3 years R.I. under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code. However, he directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently.
(2.) THE prosecution case was started on the basis of a first information report lodged by the informant, Bhukhali Devi on 6.10.94 stating therein that she was married to late Brahmdeo Ravidas, who died due to illness leaving behind two daughters one was aged about 16 years and other was aged about 8 years. After the death of her husband she came to live with her mother, who was working in C.C.L. at Jarangdih Colliery, district Bokaro. In 1991 her mother as per Rule 9: 4:3 of N.C.W.A gave her services to her daughter and she was appointed as a Colliery Mazdoor at Jarangdih Colliery in place of her mother. Thereafter, she started living with her two daughters at Jarangdih Colliery Chief House No. 110. At Jarangdih at some distance the accused, Jamuna Nayak was also residing and he was working as a driver at Jarangdih Colliery. Since, both of them started living at the same place and working in the same Colliery hence, they become friends. Subsequently, the accused, Jamuna Nayak had developed illicit relation with her and he started taking her salary and even sick leave allowance. She alleged in her F.I.R. that on 16.9.1994 at about 9 a.m. in the morning when her elder daughter, Sushila Kumari aged about 16 years, was alone at home then the accused entered into the house by force and at the point of pistol committed rape upon her. Suddenly, at that very movement the informant returned from her duty and found that the door is closed from inside and her daughter is shouting for help. When, the informant started making ˜Hullah' from outside then the accused open the door and ran away and her daughter came to her weeping and said that the accused, Jamuna Nayak committed rape upon her. The informant went to the Bokaro Thermal Police Station, but the O/C. refused to register the F.I.R., then she went to her mother's house at Swang Colliery and filed the petition before Superintendent of Police, Bokaro and Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro. Thereafter, this case was registered under Sections 376/452 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation police submitted charge -sheet against the accused person and the learned Magistrate after taking cognizance of the case, since, the case was exclusively triable by a court of Sessions committed the same to the Court of Sessions where the trial was held and the accused was found guilty by the learned Aditional Sessions Judge as stated above and convicted and sentenced thereunder.
(3.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial court has wrongly convicted the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code for committing rape upon the daughter of the informant as it will appear from the statement of the informant that she had grudge against this appellant since he was taking her salary and sick leave allowance after his marriage with the informant at Purilia and hence she lodged this false F.I.R. to falsely implicate him. The learned trial court found the allegation of the informant is baseless and accordingly acquitted the accused from the charges under Sections 493, 497, 313 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, but wrongly relied for convicting the appellant under Sections 376 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code.;