Manilal Manjhi vs The State of Jharkhand

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

The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31 5.2002 passed by N. Mishra, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Case No. 7/2000|12/2001 by which judgment the sole appellant was found guilty and convicted u/s 376/511 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and six months with a fine of 1000/- and in default of that further sentenced to undergo R.I. for three months.

It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned trial court failed to consider the fact that the occurrence took place in a dark night and nobody has identified the accused and the accused has proved that there was land dispute between him and the husband of the victim lady. But, in spite of that, trial court found the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence, the impugned judgment is bad in law and fit to be set aside.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the state has submitted that the prosecution witnesses failed to prove that there was any previous litigation between the parties for any false implication and evidence of the prosecutrix has fully been supported by the evidences of P.W.2 and 4 as also the Investigating Officer. Hence, the finding of the trial court is based on cogent evidence and 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 written report given by the prosecutrix, Mina Most. stating therein that on 30.11.1999 at about 7 p.m. in the evening after giving food to her children she had gone to the school so that her children can sleep in the school, since due to water logging part of her house had fallen down. While, she was coming back it is alleged that the appellant, Manilal Manjhi caught hold of her from behind and took her to the bari where he threw her on the ground and thereafter rubbed her breast and after removing her clothes wanted to commit rape, when on bulla, villagers namely Mahendra Sah, Amit Mandal and Jageshwar Sah came there due to which appellant fled away without committing rape after assaulting the victim with fist and blow.

On the basis of the said written report, police registered a case u/s 376/511 of the I.P.C. and after investigation submitted charge sheet against the accused.

Since, the case was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after taking cognizance of the case committed the same to the court of Sessions and lastly the case was tried by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda who found the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.

In order to prove the charges, prosecution has altogether examined 7 witnesses.

P.W.1 is Most. Aniya

P.W.2 is Mahendra Lal Sah

P.W.3 is Sahju Mandal

P.W.4 is Suresh Manjhi

P.W.5 is Jageshwar Sah

P.W.6 is Mina Most, Informant of the case

P.W.7 is Randhir Singh, Investigating Officer of the Case.

P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.5 have turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. However, it appeals that the prosecution case was supported by P.W.2 , P.W.4 as also the victim girl, P.W.6 and P.W.7, the investigating officer of the case. P.W.2, Mahendra Sah who is also named witness in the written report has stated that on hearing hulla of the victim he came to the place of occurrence and saw the accused, Manilal Manjhi over the body of the victim. The accused ran away seeing the others. Although, he admitted that the occurrence took place in the dark night and he identified the appellant and subsequently the victim lady narrated the story to him. P.W.4 Suresh Manjhi also stated in court that on hearing hulla he came to the place of occurrence, but by that time the accused had ran away from the place of occurrence and the story was told to him by the victim lady. The informant, P.W.6 has fully supported her case and she stated that she does not know that there is litigation between here husband and the accused. In her cross examination she stated that she was caught hold by the accused from the back and therefore, she could not see him. Thus, it appears that the prosecution story that the appellant caught hold of the victim lady and attempted to commit rape upon her is only supported by the evidence of P.W.3 who says that he found the appellant on the body of the victim lady and none else. P.W.2 has also admitted that the night was dark and he admitted that the appellant had caught hold of the victim girl from the back side and he could not see his face.

In that view of the matter, it appears that the prosecution case is doubtful as to whether the victim lady was outraged or any attempt was made to commit rape by the appellant, since there was no source of light in a dark night. In the facts of the circumstances of the case, the appellant, Manilal Manjhi is given benefit of doubt and acquitted from the charges levelled against him.

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31.5.2002 is set aside. The appellant is on bail and hence, he is released from the liability of his bail bond.