JUDGMENT

Birendra Kumar, J. - The sole appellant-Sanoj Mandal @ Sanoj Kumar Mandal has challenged his conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code whereunder the appellant was awarded ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rupees fifty thousand which is payable to the victim of the crime. The impugned judgment of conviction dated 26.11.2018 and order of sentence dated 29.11.2018 have been passed, in Sessions Trial No. 499 of 2013 corresponding to CIS No. 3347 of 2014 arising out of Raniganj P.S. Case No. 150 of 2012, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Araria.

2. The prosecution case as disclosed in the written report of the prosecutrix dated 08.08.2012 is that in the night of 07.08.2021, the prosecutrix was sleeping in her house in a separate room whereas the parents were in the adjoining room. At about 12:00 P.M., the appellant, who is neighbour, entered into her room and forcefully opened her lower garments and ravished her by keeping his hand on her mouth to prevent any alarm. However, she anyhow made alarm and the parents came and saw the appellant. Thereafter, on alarm of the parents, the neighbours also reached there and the appellant was taken into custody. Soon the mother of the appellant Sobha Devi and brother Mithu Kumar (who were also co-accused and were acquitted of the charges under Sections 341, 332, 457 of the Indian Penal Code) came there and after commission of assault against the prosecution forcefully took away to the appellant. Thereafter, a Panchayati was convened in the village and the Panches decided that the appellant should marry with the prosecutrix but the appellant refused and thereafter the FIR was lodged.

3. On the basis of written report (Ext. 1), the formal FIR (Ext. 3) was drawn and registered as Raniganj P.S. Case No. 150 of 2012 on 09.08.2012. During investigation, the prosecutrix was medically examined. Her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is Ext. 2 and her medical examination report is Ext. 5. After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge- sheet vide Ext. 6 and, accordingly, the appellant and others were put on trial.

4. The prosecution produced altogether ten witnesses during trial. The prosecutrix P.W. 6 consistently supported her case as disclosed in the FIR or her statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The cross-examination, at length, does not reveal that the prosecutrix made any exaggeration or material contradiction regarding the place of occurrence, manner of occurrence and the identity of the perpetrator of the crime. P.W. 1 Nityanand Mandal and P.W. 5 Devki Devi are parents of the prosecutrix and they claimed that they had seen the incident and had caught the appellant inside the room. Remaining prosecution witnesses P.W. 2 Jay Prakash is a relative of the prosecutrix and he had come on hearing the news of the incident. P.W. 3 Devendra Mandal, P.W. 4 Vidhyanand Mandal, P.W. 7 Satyadev Mandal and P.W. 8 Sudhir Mandal are witnesses who reached at the place of occurrence soon after the alarm and saw that the appellant was in clutches of the parents of the prosecutrix. The parents of the prosecutrix disclosed about the occurrence to the witnesses. In the next morning, a Panchayati was convened wherein most of the witnesses were present and they decided that appellant should marry with the prosecutrix. The appellant refused, hence, the FIR was lodged. P.W. 9 Dr. Mantasa had examined the prosecutrix. The Doctor was of opinion that hymen of the prosecutrix was ruptured. However, no other injury was there on the private part. The vaginal swab did not show any spermatozoa either alive or dead. The age of the prosecutrix was assessed between seventeen to nineteen years. In the cross-examination, the witness admitted that there was no sign of fresh sexual assault. P.W. 10 Subhash Chandra Singh is the Investigating Officer of the case. He had fully supported th