Kali Charan Mahto vs The State of Jharkhand

Pradeep Kumar, J.—By Court: Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel for the state.

The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 7.6.2001 and order of sentence dated 13.6.2001 passed by Sri Sharang Dhar Singh, 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 346 of 1999 by which judgment the appellant has been found guilty for the offence u/s 376 of the I.P.C and convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default, further S.I. for 5 years. He was further convicted for the offence u/s 420 of the I.P.C and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for 2 years. The aforesaid sentences were directed to run concurrently, however, in default of payment of fines imposed as aforesaid, both the period of sentence will run consecutively.

It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that the prosecution case has been lodged after a long delay of 4 months and as such the prosecution case is not reliable and it appears that subsequently, under the influence of some village politics the case has been lodged against the accused-appellant and he has falsely been implicated in this case. As such, the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant is bad in law and fit to be set aside. He has further submitted that it appears that due to the fact that the complainant is a widowed lady, the court out of sentiment has passed severe sentence against the appellant which is not in accordance in law and lenient view should have been taken considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the state has opposed the prayer and submitted that prosecution case has fully been supported by the evidence of two eye witnesses, P.W. 2 and 4 and also by the witnesses, who attended the Panchyati in the village and as such the prosecution has fully proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. As has been settled even the version of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the appellant for the offence charged and hence the finding requires no interference by this Court.

After hearing both the parties and after going through the evidences on record, I find that the prosecution case was started on the basis of the fardbeyan given by the informant, Manju Devi on 2.6.1999 at 16 hrs at Munidih O.P. Of Putki police station stating therein that her husband Late Rishinath Matho was employee of BCCL, who died in 1995 and after his death she made an application for her employment in his place at BCCL. In the meanwhile, accused-Kali Charan Mahto of Kathitanr approached her, who was also employee of BCCL and stated that if she spent Rs. 2000/- then she will get employment. Believing him, she paid Rs. 2000/-. After sometime he again came and stated that BCCL is not giving service and she will have to file a case in High Court at Ranchi and asked her to accompany him to Ranchi. Again on 5.2.1999 in the morning kali Charan Mahto came to her house and stated that today she is going to Ranchi. Even Jaleshwar Mahto with his family is going to Ranchi and as such, she should not have any fear. Then she accompanied him to Putki and at the bus stand, not finding Jaleshwar Mahto with his family, she asked about Jaleshwar Mahto. He he stated that Jaleshwar has left for Ranchi in his own car, then she came with him and at Ranchi also she asked as to where Jaleshwar is staying. Then he stated that she will meet him later on and took her to Hotal Rajasthan and kept her in room No. 39 and on 5.2.1999 itself in the hotel he committed rape upon her in the night. When she made protest then he stated that she would be killed, if she would make Hulla and she would never get any employment in the BCCL. On 6.2.1999 Kalicharan Mahto took her to a Lawyer, but he himself talked to the lawyer and stated her that the work would be done and take her back to Putki. He got down at Putki and he left for Dhanbad. It is further alleged that on 29.4.1999 in the night when there was kirtan going on in the village at about 9 p.m. Kalicharan Mahto came with two boys and demanded Rs. 50/-. She gave Rs. 50/-. At that time her step son was not present in the house. He had gone to attend the kirtan. He talked about her service for long time. Then suddenly he caught hold of her and started committing rape upon her. She started weaping and made hulla, subsequently her nephew Sunil and Jhabbu came and Kalicharan also gave threat to them to do away with their lives. She alleged that again after one week, Kali Charan Mahto in the night at 11 p.m. asked her to open the door and when she refused to open then he went back and again came after 4 days and threw he file with regard to her service and sated that now she will not get any service and she will die out of starvation. He went away, then she went to the Mukhia of the village, Baba Charan Mahto and told about the occurrence to him. Then he called a meeting of Mahto Samaj on 30.5.1999 and in the panchayat accused Kali Charan Mahto was also called, but he did not came, then she told about the entire occurrence. All the members of panchayati told her that since, the accused is not present, she should go to the police station to lodge a case. Accordingly, she went to the police station and gave her fardbeyan.

On the basis of the said fardbeyan, police registered a case u/s 376 and 420 of the I.P.C against the appellant and after investigation submitted charge sheet. Since, the case was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, Learned C.J.M committed the case to the court of Sessions Judge and finally the case was tried by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad who found the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.

It appears that the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses to prove its case.

P.W. 1 is Saheb Ram Mahto

P.W. 2 is Sunil Kumar Mahto

P.W. 3 is Ganesh Kr. Mahto

P.W. 4 is Jabbu Lal Mahto

P.W. 5 is Manju Devi, informant of the case

P.W. 6 is Shiv Charan Mahto

P.W. 7 is Gokul Mahto

P.W. 8 is Dilip Kr. Mahto

P.W. 9 is Baba Charan Mahto

P.W. 10 is Karmu Ram Mahto

P.W. 11 is Dr. Laxmi Pandey

It is important to note that the informant, Manju Devi has fully supported her case when she was examined in the court as P.W. 5. She stated that her husband was working in BCCL and after her death, she applied for service in BCCL, then accused Kali Charan Mahto approached her and stated that until and unless she spend Rs. 2000/-, she will not get service, then she gave Rs. 2000/-. For 4 to 6 months she ran after him, then he stated that she cannot get service now from the level of BCCL and asked her to file a case at Ranchi High Court. He stated that he has distant aunt of her relation and even Jaleshwar Mahto with his family is going to Ranchi and she should accompany him to Ranchi for filing the case. Then she agreed, but when she reached the bus stand, finding that Jaleshwar Mahto was not present there, she refused to go. Then he stated that Jaleshwar has proceeded in his car to Ranchi. Then she came with him to Ranchi and at Ranchi Bus stand she inquired about Jaleshwar. Then he stated that jaleshwar has house here and he will meet in the house. After that he took her to Rajasthan Hotel. In the evening, he took her to a Lawyer''s house, but only he talked with the Lawyer. Thereafter, he asked her that let as come back after sometime, but in the meanwhile, it became night and he brought her back to the Hotel where she took her food and slept. She objected since, there was only one room with two bed, then Kali Charan Mahto stated that he has got no money for taking two rooms. Since, her daughter was with her, she slept, but in the night accused-Kali Charan Mahto committed rape upon her and when she wanted to make hulla, then he threatened her to commit her murder. In the next morning he took her back to Putki. He gave him threat while going that she should not disclose the occurrence to anybody. She got down at Putki, but Kali Charan Mahto became trace less. She stated that after 2 months, he again came to her house with two boys and demanded Rs. 50/-Out of fear, she gave Rs. 50/- to him which he gave them to young boys asking them to go to Mela. She asked him to go, but he asked that he will go and asked for glass of water. While, giving water, he caught hold of her and she started weeping. He put down her and again committed rape upon her. Hearing her sound her nephew came they also saw the occurrence, but Kali Charan also threatened them to commit their murder if, they would disclose the matter to anybody. Then they also left the place. She stated that Kali Charan Mahto again came in the house after one week and asked her to open the door, but she refused. Then he went to the roof and stayed there for the night and left in the morning after breaking bulbs etc. of her house. After about 4 days, he came back with her case file and threw it by saying that now she would not get service and she will be starved, since she has refused for illicit relationship with him. Then she went to the house of Mukhia and told about the occurrence. Then a panchayati was called where the accused was also called, but he did not turn up, then she filed a case as per the advice of the Panches. She identified the accused in the court. She was cross examined at length. She admitted that her husband had 4 wives, two of them are now dead. Her step son mukesh along with his sister is residing with her. The second name of Mukesh is kanak Kanti Mahto and with the consent of step son and daughter she received the money from BCCl after the death of her husband and also received all the money and pension was fixed in her favour at Rs. 640 per month which she was getting and her step son and daughter are staying with her. She also admitted that she had applied for service in BCCL which was subsequently refused by BCCL. Then this accused asked her to file a case at Ranchi. She also admitted that panchayati was held in the village and she narrated the entire story to the panchayati. The Panchayati asked her to file case and she filed the same immediately on the next day.

The fact that rape was committed upon her on 2.6.1999 was fully supported by the two nephews, P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 i.e. Sunil Kumar Mahto and Jhabbu Lal Mahto. P.W. 2 has stated that about 8 months back when there was kirtan going on in the village, he came to the house of Manju Devi to call her son and then they entered the house and heard the sound of weeping of Manju Devi and he entered the house through the aangan and saw that the accused Kali Charan Mahto was committing rape upon her. Seeing them, Kali Charan Mahto got up and threatened them to commit their murder, if the matter is disclosed to anybody. Then he left for Kirtan. Subsequently, Manju Devi narrated the story that two months back the accused had taken her to Ranchi for filing a case with regard to her service in BCCL and kept her in a Hotel named Rajasthan Hotel in room No. 39 and in the night committed rape upon her. Manju Devi later on reported the matter to the Mukhia, who called Panchayati and she narrated the story in the panchayati also. P.W. 4 has also supported the fact that on 29.4.1999 when they were going for kirtan in the village, they went to the house of Mukesh and when they entered the house he heard the sound of weeping of Manju Devi, since door was opened. They saw the accused Kali Charan Mahto committing rape upon her. Seeing them he got up and gave threatening that he will commit their murder if, the matter is disclosed of anybody. Subsequently, Manju Devi narrated the story that earlier the accused had taken her to Ranchi with regard to service in BCCL and he had kept her in room No. 39 in the night. He also stated that accused demanded Rs. 2000/- for getting service in the BCCL.

The evidence of other witnesses namely,P.W. 9, P.W.&, P.W. 8, P.W. 10 also supported the fact that panchayati was held on 30.5.1999 in which the accused was called by the Panches, but he did not turn up, to which Panches advised the victim- Manju Devi to lodge a case at the Police station. 11. Thus, although, it is apparent that first occurrence took place on 5.2.1999, the second occurrence took place on 29.2.1999 and the matter was reported late only after the panchayati of Mahto�s failed to come to any decision, since the accused refused to come before the panchayati. So the said delay cannot be the ground to create any doubt in the prosecution case, since, nature of the case is such that when she applied for job in place of her husband and since, the accused was himself employee of BCCL and he gave assurance to her that he will succeed in getting her the service in the BCCL, she was not in a position to report the matter and it appears in the hope of service, she supported to the lust of the accused and hence delay was caused. Further, when the accused threatened her that she would not get a job and she will be starved, then she was forced to report the matter before the Panchayati. The prosecution has fully proved the case and I find nothing to interfere with the finding of the trial court.

In the result, appeal is dismissed. Since, the appellant is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled and trial court is directed to issue warrant of arrest against him for serving out the sentence.