Hemlal Murmu vs The State of Jharkhand

Pradeep Kumar, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the appellant argues as amicus curie since appointed at the time of admission itself and learned Counsel for the state.

The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 21.08.2000 and order of sentence dated 22.08.2000 passed in S.T. No. 103 of 1996 by Shri Laxman Oraon, Sessions Judge, Dumka, by which judgment he found the sole appellant guilty under Sections 376 and sentenced him to undergo R.I for ten years.

It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that except the evidence of the prosecutrix P.W. 7, Kalyani Soren there is no evidence to prove the fact that any rape was committed upon the prosecutrix by the sole appellant. In that view of the matter the conviction of the appellant is bad in law and fit to be set aside.

On the other hand learned Counsel for the State has supported the prosecution case and stated that all the witnesses including prosecutix herself has supported the prosecution case and her evidence was given in her cross-examination, which has been corroborated by all other witnesses therefore, appellant has rightly been convicted.

After hearing both the parties and going through the records, I find that the prosecution case was started on the basis of written report of the prosecutrix, Kalyani Soren stating therein that on 12.08. 1995 when she was returning to her father''s house after her work in a crusher machine, Gorainala when she reached Arjundih at 7.15 P.M. near the pond then this accused, Hemlal Murmu caught hold of her and finding that the place was lonely, he committed rape upon her, she made hulla, but the place was lonely therefore, no one came to rescue her. She lodged written report on the next day of occurrence.

On the basis of the said written report, police registered a case u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused and after investigation, police submitted charge-sheet in the case against the accused u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Since, the case was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, after taking cognizance learned Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions and subsequently, the case was tried by learned Sessions Judge, Dumka, who found the appellant guilty under Sections 376 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him as aforesaid.

It appears that in the course of the trial, the prosecution has examined as many as twelve witnesses.

P.W.1, Dr. Mrs. Madhu Bala Sinha.

P.W.2, Mono soren.

P.W.3, Rohan Murmu

P.W.4, Bagla Besera.

P.W.5, Sahadeo Marandi.

P.W.6, Lakhan Soren

P.W. 7, Kalyani Soren, victim and the informant of the case.

P.W. 8, Shyam Murmu.

P.W. 9, Hiralal Ram.

P.W 10, Mansu Murmu.

P.W. 11, debeshwar Soren.

P.W. 12, Niranjan Mandal.

It is important to note that P.W.3, Rohan Murmu, P.W.4, Bagla Besera, P.W. 10, Mansu Murmu, P.W.11, debeshwar Soren and P.W.12, Niranjan Mandal, have turned hostile and said nothing in the Court even P.W. 2 Mono Soren also said nothing in the Court. From the evidence, it appears that the prosecutrix, P.W.7, Kalyani Devi has fully supported the prosecution case and stated that when she was returning to her father''s house after her work in a crusher machine, Gorainala when she reached Arjundih at 7.15 P.M. near the pond then this accused, Hemlal Murmu caught hold of her and finding that the place was lonely place, he committed rape upon her, she made hulla, but the place was lonely therefore, no one came to rescue her. She came to her house and reported the matter to father Lakhan Soren, Mother Romani and her uncle Munshi Murmu and Munishu Murmu and the next day written report was filed to the police and she also produced her blood stain Sari and Saya and she was sent to medical examination to Jamtara, where she was examined. In her cross-examination, she stated that half an hour time spend to come from Arjundih to Lokdih by foot, she also admitted that there was some dispute with the accused with her distant uncle Rameshwar Soren, but she has got no enmity with the accused. The prosecution case as given by P.W.7 Kalyani Soren, has fully been supported by other witnesses namely P.W.8, Shyam Murmu and P.W. 9, Hiralal Ram. They have stated that immediately after the occurrence she came to her house and in the presence of all witnesses she stated that near the Arjundih in lonely place the accused namely Hemlal Murmu committed rape upon her. In that view of the matter, I find nothing to discredit the statement of the prosecution and relying the evidence of the prosecutrix, which is corroborated by the other witnesses, I find the appellant guilty u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed having no merit.

However, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that it appears from the record that the appellant/accused Hemlal Murmu surrendered in the Court on 12.09.1995 and since no bail was granted to him either by the Chief Judicial Magistrate or by the Session Judge and he has remained in custody from more than his conviction passed against him i.e. 10 years. In that view of the matter, if the accused Hemlal Murmu is still in jail custody since already more than his period of sentence, he shall be released from the jail custody forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.