JAI KRISHNA MANDAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the following facts: on 7-2-1999 at about 4.00 p.m. the prosecutrix, PW 6, the daughter-in-law of the first informant, went out of the village for grazing her goat. As she did not return for some time it was thought that she had gone to visit her mother, but when she did not return even the next day, the family set out in search of her but could not find her. They however ascertained that the appellants herein, Jai Krishna Mandal and Munna Das were also missing from the village from 7-2-1999. The two appellants however returned to the village on 11-2-1999 and were duly interrogated by the villagers on which they admitted that they had kidnapped the prosecutrix and kept her in Village Maheshadih. A case under Sections 366 and 376 was accordingly registered against the two.

(2.) The prosecutrix also returned to the village on 16-2-1999 and her statement under Section 164 CrPC was recorded wherein she stated that she had gone out of the house at 10.00 a.m. to graze her goat and as she came out of the village the two appellants and Shanker Singh, a third co-accused, absconding, had caught hold of her and had closed her mouth and administered some medicine to her to make her unconscious and they had then taken her to another village and thereafter raped her repeatedly and that she had subsequently been moved from village to village till her release about four days later, whereafter she had returned to the village of her maternal grandfather. She was also medically examined at about 11.30 a.m. on 16-2-1999 and the attending doctor did not find any injury on her person nor any evidence of spermatozoa on the vaginal smear. The doctor, however, opined that the possibility of sexual intercourse could not be ruled out.

(3.) On the completion of the investigation the appellants were charged for the aforesaid offences and were brought to trial. The trial court held that the statement of the prosecutrix itself was good enough to record a conviction against them and as there was ample evidence to show that the appellants had also disappeared from the village at about the same time as the disappearance of the prosecutrix was also a corroborating factor. The trial court also relied on the evidence of PW 2, the husband of the prosecutrix and several other witnesses as well. The trial court also held that the uncertain medical evidence with regard to the rape could not be taken against the prosecution for the simple reason that the prosecutrix was a married woman with two children and a third pregnancy was about 1 1/2 to 2 months on, and as such it was obvious that she was habituated to regular intercourse. The finding of the trial court was affirmed in appeal by the High Court.