RANCHI, India, Nov. 28 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Oct. 30:

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Spl.P.P. representing the State.

2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.02.2005 passed in S.C. No. 60 of 1992/S.T. No. 418 of 1993 arising out of Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 171 of 1991 corresponding to G.R. Case No.325 of 1991, T.R. No. 854 of 1991 by the Court of learned 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Rajmahal, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo R.I. for three months.

3. The criminal law has been put into motion on lodging an F.I.R being Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 171 of 1991 against the appellant making an allegation that while the victim was returning after attending the nature's call then the appellant committed rape upon her on gun point.

4. On the basis of the investigation, the Police submitted chargesheet on 13.08.1991 against the appellant and thereafter cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.

5. Accordingly, charge was framed on 19.06.2001against the appellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To substantiate the allegations altogether nine prosecution witnesses have been examined. The defence has also examined three witnesses.

7. In support of his contention, learned counsel for appellant has taken the following grounds:

I. P.W.6- victim, although has stated in her cross examination that there was injury and she had taken medicine but this fact is not supported or corroborated by the medical evidence available on record marked as Ext. A.

II. The victim has deposed that she along with her brother Mahabir Mandal- P.W.8 had gone to the house of Basant Pramanik, who is the Mukhiya of the village examined as P.W.5, for making complaint and on his advice the F.I.R has been lodged. However, the said P.W.5 has denied such statement in his deposition and stated that he was not even aware whether such incident has taken place or not.

III. P.W.7-Nirmala Bewa, who is sister of the informant has claimed herself to be an eye witness to the incident and has stated that she had seen the appellant fleeing away from the place of occurrence. But there is no other witness to support the presence of P.W.7 at the place of occurrence rather the prosecution story has never introduced P.W.7 to be an eye witness to the occurrence.

IV. Further, the blood stained clothes and other incriminating materials were never sent for forensic examination and not converted into evidence.

V. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the only material available against the appellant is the solitary evidence of the victim, however, it is settled principle of law that on the sole evidence of the victim conviction can be sustained but the evidence must be reliable. In the present case the statement of the victim is questionable as she has disclosed about injury sustained by her but her statement is not corroborated by the medical evidence.

VI. Further, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the F.IR has been lodged on the advice of the Mukhiya-P.W.5 who has denied such statement ever made by him.

VII. Further, P.W.7 claimed herself to be an eyewitness but no other witnesses have supported the fact that P.W.7 was present at the place of occurrence. Thus, the prosecution has tried to implicate the appellant by making contradictory statement. Since, there is enough contradiction in the testimony of the victim which makes her statement doubtful.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=FARLzxb7T713hJCp0t1ikqOiTWoEvB3guxEgCUffJNttL7KSFuCkZdw%2BuNdBiyT9&caseno=Cr.A(SJ)/291/2005&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010010452005&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.