AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Amareshwar Sahay, J.—Both the appeals arise of the same impugned judgment and as such they were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
All the three appellants were charged for the offence under Sections 376, 341, 109 IPC for committing gang-rape on Parvati Marandai (PW.6). The learned trial Court i.e. the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Jamtara, in Sessions Case No.52 of 1991, found all the three appellants guilty and thereby convicted them for the offence u/s 376(g) of the Indian Penal Code and also u/s 341 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.J. for a period of eight years each for the offence u/s 376(g) IPC. However, no separate sentence was awarded for the offence u/s 341 IPC.
The case was instituted on the basis of fardebyan of the prosecutrix PW.6 Parvati Marandai. In her fardbeyan she alleged that on 28.6.1988 at about 2.30 p.m., she had gone to Barugoria river for cleaning her clothes. While she was cleaning her clothes, the three accused persons (the present appellants) came there and asked for soap from her which she refused. Thereafter, it is said, she was dragged towards the river side and she was thrown on the river-sand and, thereafter, all the three accused-appellants committed rape forcibly on her one after another. She also tried to raise halla, but her mouth was gagged and she was also given threats by the accused persons. It was further stated by her in the fardbeyan that the said occurrence was witnessed by the wife of Doman Dhobi i.e. Shanti Devi (PW.1) and her niece Aathe Kumari (PW.2). The defence of the appellants was total denial of the occurrence and of false implication.
In order to establish the charge''s, altogether 8 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. PW 1 is Shanti Devi. She is an eyewitness to the occurrence. PW.2 is Aathe Kuamri, PW 3 is Pawan Kumar Rajak, a formal witness. PW.4 Rasik Marandai is the father of the victim girl. PW 5 Moni Kisku is the mother of the victim. PW.6 is the informant who is the victim herself. PW.7 is the doctor who medically examined the victim and, PW.8 is a formal witness.
PW.1 Shanti Devi, an eyewitness to the occurrence, has slated in her examination-in-chief that when she had gone to attend the call of nature, she saw the accused persons committing rape on the victim girl (PW.6). She also saw that the hands and legs of the victim were pressed by the accused persons. This witness identified all the three accused persons at the place of occurrence. She further stated that she abused the accused persons and asked them to leave Parvati, but they did not listen to her. Thereafter, she went back to the village and again came with PW.2 Aathe Kuamri. At that time, the accused persons had fled away from the place of occurrence. Thereafter, she helped the victim in getting up and also helped her in wearing Sari and blouse. While she was coming with the victim girl to the village, on the way she met with the mother of the victim girl and then she handed over the victim girl to her mother and left the place. This witness was subjected to a lengthy cross-examination. In the cross-examination she specifically stated that she saw the occurrence of commission of rape from a distance of 300 yards and that time she could recognize the accused persons. She also raised halla, but the accused persons did not leave the victim girl and then she went back to the village for calling other persons and ultimately she came back with her niece PW.2 Aathe Kumari.
There is nothing in her evidence so as to make her statement to be unbelievable and unreliable.
PW.2 Aathe Kumari has stated that when she went to the place of occurrence along with her aunt PW l, she found that one girl was weeping at the place of occurrence and she was PW.6, the victim girl. She did not state about the actual occurrence of commission of rape on the victim girl.
PW.3 is a formal witness, PW.4 is the hither of the victim girl. He has stated in his evidence that he came to know about the commission of rape on his daughter by his father-in-law since he was out of the village on that day. When he came back to his house, his daughter Parvati narrated the entire story of rape on her by the accused persons. PW.5 Mom Kisku is the mother of the victim girl. She stated in her evidence that she along with the wife of one Sobrati, a co-villager, was coming to the village and when they reached near the river, then Shanti (PW.1) called her and told that her daughter has been raped by the accused poisons. Thereafter said PW l left the place. Parvati started weeping and then this witness asked her daughter as to what had happened and then her daughter (the victim) narrated the entire story of rape on her by the accused persons.
PW. 6 Parvati Marandai, the victim girl, has given a vivid description of the entire occurrence and has narrated in detail the occurrence of rape on her by the accused persons and has supported her statement made in the fardbeyan, PW.7 is the lady doctor. In her evidence she has stated that no mark of injury was found on victim''s person or on her private part and no definite opinion could be gathered about the commission of rape on the victim girl.
From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it appears that the material witnesses are PW l, the eyewitness, and PW.6, the victim girl, and the doctor (PW.7).
Mr. K.P. Deo, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, submitted that the story put forward by the prosecution was improbable and unbelievable. Elaborating his argument, he submitted that the story put forward by PW l does not tally with the story put forward by the prosecutrix (PW.6). He submitted that the name of the river mentioned by the prosecutrix was Barugoria, whereas PW. 1 has mentioned the name of the river as Dailypathar and therefore, according to Mr. Deo, the prosecution failed to establish the place of occurrence. The submission of Mr. Deo cannot be accepted and hence it is rejected for the following reasons.
There is consistent evidence that the victim girl was raped by the side of the river. It is immaterial whether the name of the river was Barugoria or Dailypathar. Both the witnesses, PW.l and PW.6, have stated that the accused persons committed rape on the victim girl by the side of the river where the victim had gone for cleaning her clothes. Both PW. 1 and PW.6 have named these appellants as the persons who committed rape. Mr. Deo further submitted that though the victim girl was examined within two days of the occurrence, but the doctor''s evidence does not support the prosecution case of commission of rape on the victim since the Doctor did not find any injury or any sign of rape on the victim girl.
The law has been settled on this point by the Supreme Court that in such cases of rape, even on the statement of the prosecutrix only, the accused can be convicted u/s 376 IPC if the Court finds that the statement of the victim is wholly trustworthy. No further corroboration is required. May be in the present case, the doctor did not corroborate the statement of the victim girl, but that by itself cannot make the prosecution case doubtful. From the evidence of the proseculrix, I find that the same is fully trustworthy and there is no reason to disbelieve her evidence. The defence has not even suggested the prosecutrix that she falsely implicated the accused persons due to enmity. If the evidence of the prosecutrix is found to be trustworthy and believable, then no other corroboration is required in a case of rape. In the present case, as discussed above, I find the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW.6) to be wholly trustworthy and there is nothing in the cross-examination by the defence so as to make her evidence unreliable.
Lastly, Mr. Deo, learned Counsel for the appellants, submitted that so far appellant Tikeshwar Murmu (of Cr. Appeal No.440 of 2004) is concerned, he was a minor on the date of occurrence and therefore was a juvenile and hence, his conviction and sentence was illegal. This plea of minority or a question of juvenile of appellant Tikeshwar Murmu has been raised for the first time at the time of argument of this appeal. No doubt, as per decision of the Supreme Court reported in Gurpreet Singh Vs. State of Punjab, the plea of juvenile can be raised at any stage, even at the appellate stage. The date of occurrence of this case is 28.6.19888. In the present case except for the oral submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant Tikeshwar Murmu was a minor on the date of occurrence, nothing has been brought on record to substantiate the said fact. On the other hand, record of the case speaks otherwise. The age of the appellant was stated to be 25 yeas on 10/10.1996 i.e. the date on which statement u/s 313 CrPC was recorded. Therefore, his age on the date of occurrence (28.6.1988) comes to be of 17 years i.e. more than 16 years. Therefore, this appellant Tikeshwar Murmu can not come under the purview of a Juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 since he was more than 16 years of age. Therefore, this plea that the appellant Tikeshwar Murmu was a Juvenile on the date of occurrence is rejected.
In view of my discussions and findings above, I hold that the trial Court rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants by holding them guilty for the charges u/s 376(g) and 341 I.P.C.
In the result, by affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellants passed by the trial Court, these appeals are dismissed. The appellants, who are on bail, their bail bonds are hereby cancelled and they are directed to be taken into custody to serve out the sentence.