Jaldhar Mandal vs The State of Bihar

S.N. Pathak, J.—This appeal has been preferred against the order of conviction and sentence passed by Shri Muneshwar Sahoo, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda, in Sessions Case No. 98 of 1991/182 of 1998. The sole Appellant was (sic) u/s 376 of the Indian pal Code and sentenced to undergo (sic) imprisonment for seven years.

The case of the prosecution, as pre written report of Kumari Anita, the vie (sic) that on 14.12.1989, at about 3 P.M. she was alone in her house. Her father is teacher in Middle School, Lakhanpur in (sic) district of Dumka. Her mother was already dead. Her neighbour, the accused Appellant, was on visiting terms with her house. On the alleged date, that is, 1.12.1989, at 3 P.M. the accused entered her house and finding her alone committed rape upon her. Her younger sister was away to attend her school at that time. The informant failed to disclose is occurrence to any body on account of (sic). Then again on 23.12.1989, in (sic) afternoon, the accused entered her use on some pretext and repeated the (sic) of unwilling sex with her. When the (sic) wanted to raise alarm and to dis- (sic) the offence to others, the accused promised to marry her. On the promise to marry the accused they started having regular sex with her resulting in her conception. At the time of reporting the occurrence, that is on 20.3.1990, she was carrying for the last 2 1/2 months. There was pressure upon the accused to marry fie victim, but ultimately, he refused. Then tie informant related (sic--narrated?) the occurrence to her father who tried to prevail upon the accused to marry her at the intervention of the villagers, but the accused failed to abide by his promise. On 9.3.1990, she went to the house of Jaldhar Mandal of her own accord, but she was pushed out of his house by the accused and his family members. At the time of this incident of her pushing out from the house of the accused, Shashidhar Pandit, Sushil Pandit and Raghunath Pandit were present. On the above written report of the informant, a case was registered and investigation followed. Subsequently, after chargesheet and commitment, the accused faced trial and was thus convicted and sentenced.

The accused pleaded innocence and alleged false implication.

The prosecution examined in all 12 witnesses. P.W.11 is doctor. He examined the victim on 20.3.1990. The doctor estimated the age of the victim on the date of examination as 14 years. The doctor stated in his evidence that the girl was carrying for the last eight weeks, that is the girl was pregnant for the last eight weeks. P.W.12 was the so called witness to support the alleged rape on the victim but he has stated that he had heard about the rape from others. P.W.13 is also hearsay witness who heard about the alleged rape on the victim from the victim''s father. P.W.14 is I.O. of the case whose evidence regarding alleged rape is nil and it is naturally so because he learnt about all the alleged occurrence from the informant and her father. He visited the place of occurrence and examined some witnesses. P.W.10 was another witness. He was examined to support the alleged occurrence. He is uncle of the victim. He has spoken about pregnancy of Kumari Anita. There was a Panchaiti in the village and this witness was present at the time of Panchaiti. The accused and his father were present. The Panches directed the accused to give Rs. 1600/- as expenses for abortion of the victim. The accused accepted the decision of the Panches. The Panches sent the victim to the house of the accused, but the family members drove her out.

P.W.9 is the victim herself. She spoke about the alleged occurrence committed by the accused with her firstly on 14.12.1989 and then on 23.12.1989. She has almost supported all the facts which were stated in her written report (Ext.5). She has remained unshaken on the material particulars of the alleged sexual assault upon her against her will and consent. P.W.8 is father of the victim girl. He has also supported the fact that he has learnt about the alleged criminal assault upon her daughter at the hands of the accused from his daughter as also from his daughter-in-law. The accused was on visiting terms with his family and the date of birth of the victim girl has been given as 8.3.1976 by this witness. He has also spoken about the promise of the accused to marry her and subsequent intervention of the Panches. P.Ws. 7, 6, 5, 4, 3 and 2 all have been declared hostile. P.W.1 is Bhabhi of the victim girl. She also supported the case of the alleged rape upon Kumari Anita on the two dates 14.12.1989 and 23.12.1989 and subsequent frequent sex of the accused with the victim which she had learnt from Kumari Anita herself.

From the aforesaid evidence on the record, it is apparent that the victim girl has supported the case of criminal assault. The evidence has also fixed the cause of pregnancy on account of illegal sexual acts on the part of the accused. Any suggestion to the P.W.s. has failed to elicit any plausible cause for false implication. So upon the evidence on record, it is established that Kumari Anita became pregnant on account of her unwilling and unconsenting sex with the accused which continued for several dates after the first forced act of sex.

In the result, I do not think, the finding of the learned court in this connection contains any defect on law or on material facts. The sentence awarded to the accused is also not very severe as to necessitate interference. Hence this appeal is dismissed.