Bishwanath Murmu vs State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

Deoki Nandan Prasad, J.—This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction of sentence passed by the 2nd Assistant Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No. 273 of 1998 (GR No. 2905 of 1997) registered u/s 376, IPC, whereby and whereunder the learned Court below convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo the rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.

The prosecution case in brief as alleged that Jhano Soren gave fardbeyan before the police alleging therein that she is the sister-in-law (SHALI) of the accused Bishwanath Murmu. The accused came to the house of the informant on 3.11.1997 at about 5 P.M. on the date of Solwai festival and drunk Haria and thereafter he asked the informant and her husband that he may be taken to the Sasural situated at Matku Tola, whereupon the husband of the Informant told him that he is not well and thereafter the Informant agreed to accompany him to his Sasural and both of them left the house and proceeded together and when they reached in front of the house of one Nehru Hansda situated at Matku Tola at about 7 p.m. the accused took the Informant to the courtyard and dragged her forcibly to the field and thereafter the accused committed rape on her forcibly. He also threatened her to keep mum about the incident, failing which she will face dire consequence. The Informant was carrying pregnancy of five months at the relevant time. She started crying and then the villagers also assembled there to whom she narrated the incidents and thereafter she came back to her house and narrated the incident to her husband but because of night they could not go to the police station and on the next day FIR was lodged.

Police investigated into the case and submitted chargesheet against the accused. Witnesses were examined and after hearing both sides, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant, in the manner as stated above.

Altogether eight witnesses have already been examined in the case. It is true that the doctor who examined the victim did not find any sign of rape but the victim is very much consistent about the occurrence and she has fully supported the prosecution case in the manner as alleged. Her husband, PW 5 also corroborated the fact that his wife, the victim had narrated the incident in the same night when she came back after the incident and she was weeping at the relevant time as well as PWs 3 and 4 said to be the independent witnesses also stated about the fact that the victim had narrated the incident at the same time.

At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellant confined his argument only on the point of sentence, as the appellant has been in custody since 18.11.1997 and it is also submitted that the appellant has already been punished sufficiently in the case in which the doctor who examined the victim did not find any sign of rape.

Having considered the facts and circumstances, I find that the Court below rightly passed the order of conviction of the accused/appellant for the offence u/s 376, IPC as the victim was forcibly raped and this fact has consistently been established by the testimony of PW 6, which has been fully corroborated by PWs 3, 4 and 5 as well. Thus, I find that the Court below rightly convicted the appellant for the offence u/s 376, IPC. which is confirmed.

As regards the sentence, it is true that the appellant has already been in custody since 18.11.1997 and in my view he has sufficiently been punished.

In the result, I find that the period already undergone shall be sufficient for the sentence of the appellant in the instant case. Thus, he is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for the period already undergone. The appeal is consequently dismissed with the modification of sentence only, as indicated above.

The Appellant is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.