RANCHI, India, Aug. 18 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on July 18:

1. Heard Mr. Yogesh Modi, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned APP.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23-05-2013 (sentence passed on 28-05-2013), passed by Sri Vidhan Chandra Choudhury, learned Judicial Commissioner-II, Khunti in connection with S.T. No.433 of 2008, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 376, 302 and 201 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 364 IPC, R.I. for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 376 IPC, R.I. for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 302 IPC and R.I. for 7 years for the offence under Section 201 IPC. In case of default of the total fine amount of Rs. 20,000/-, the appellant was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 2 years.

3. The prosecution case arises out of the Fardbayan of Radsi Guria recorded on 25-06-2008 in which it has been stated that the daughter of the informant victim 'X' was playing in front of his house at around 10.00 AM. The wife of the informant Biswasi Guria was inside the house. The neighbour of the informant had a guest namely Nirmal Bhengra (appellant) who came in front of the house of the informant and started playing with his daughter. After some time, Nirmal Bhengra offered to take the child towards the road and when after expiry of a considerable length of time, the daughter of the informant did not return, the informant and his wife started searching for her. The shopkeeper of the grocery shop had disclosed that the guest of Raghu Guria had purchased biscuits and had given it to the child and had thereafter gone towards the jungle. The informant became suspicious and informed the villagers, but despite a search conducted, the daughter of the informant could not be traced out. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Torpa P.S. Case No. 22 of 2008 was instituted for the offence under Section 364 IPC. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted under Sections 364, 302, 376 and 201 IPC. After cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the court of sessions where it was registered as S.T. No. 433 of 2008. Charge was framed against the accused under Sections 302, 201, 376 and 364 IPC, which was read over and explained to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses in support of its case.

5. P.W.1 Dr. Rajeshwar Prasad was posted as a Medical Officer in Sub-Divisional Hospital, Khunti and on 26.06.2006 he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of victim 'X' and had found the following injuries:

(i) Multiple bruises auteriorly as the neck one on right side and three comparatively smaller on left side. Size right side 1/2"x 1/4". Left side 1/4" x 1/4" each. The bruises are faint and defuse. Subcutaneous tissues under the bruise show ecchymosis. Tracheal rings are lacerated.

(ii) Examination of valve and vagina shores blood stained on valve, separation of labia, labia major and minors were both congested, vaginal walls show laceration with presence of hemorrhage. Vaginal swab taken and sent for microscopic examination for presence of spermatozoa. Report of vaginal swab did not show presence of sperm. The above injuries are antimortem in nature, caused by hard and blunt object. Though the vaginal swab did not show any spermatozoa the injuries on valve and vagina suggest that the person had been subjected to sexual assault and there is possibility of rape.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=T2Oj5Y97nX2tmju2FyqIUxKgJI5Xjr60frnusr7ye9kQmAePFLUVa9rLktUahv2M&caseno=Cr.A(DB)/691/2013&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010164112013&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.