D.P. Singh, J.-Both the Cr. Appeals, arising out of common judgment dated 30.6.2000 passed in Sessions Case No. 385/98 by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Godda, are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The appellant Ram Prasad Harijan @ Bhutakan Harijan has been found guilty under Sections 376/511 IPC while appellant Jai Prakash Das has been held guilty for the offence under Section 212 IPC and they have been separately sentenced to serve RI for five years and three years respectively.

3. Brief facts, leading to their conviction, are that in the night of 4/5th July, 1996 the informant Rekha Devi, wife of Supari Rabidas of village Bandanbar, P.S. Pathargama, District Godda, was sleeping inside her house on the verandah alongwith her younger sister Sulo Kumari. All of a sudden she felt someone riding over her body and found that accused Ram Prasad Harijan was trying to push his organ inside her private part. She raised alarm on which her husband came and caught hold of the appellant. It is further stated that neighbours also arrived there, who got Ram Prasad Harijan tide with Gamchhi. Ram Prasad Harijan was confined till morning, when her husband proceeded to inform the matter to police station. In the meantime appellant Jai Prakash Das came and got Ram Prasad Harijan free by untiding his hands. The incident was seen by the neighbours.

4. This matter was reported to the Officer-In-charge, Pathargama P.S. in the noon on 5th July, 1996. Her statement was recorded and Pathargama P.S. Case No. 57/96 was instituted under Sections 376/ 511/212/34 I PC against both the appellants. The police investigated the case and finally submitted charge-sheet against the appellants under Sections 376/212/34 IPC. The case was committed for sessions trial and the appellants were separately charged for the offences mentioned above under Sections 376 and 212 IPC separately. They pleaded not guilty and claimed false implications because a complaint case has been filed against Supari Rabidas, husband of the informant, for the occurrence of the same day. The learned trial court after examining the witnesses and hearing the parties, finally held the appellants guilty as mentioned above and sentenced them to serve RI for five years and three years respectively.

5. Both the appeals have been preferred on the ground that the trial court has erred in holding the appellants guilty because there is insufficient evidence and unreliable evidence. The memo of appeal, filed on behalf of appellant Ram Prasad Harijan, assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the learned lower court has relied upon the evidences of the informant Rekha Devi and her husband, while other independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. PWs 1, 2 and 3 have been declared hostile and PWs 7 and 8 have not supported the prosecution case. The learned trial court has wrongly convicted the appellants by relying upon the evidence' of PW 4, Rekha Devi and PW 6, her husband. It is further mentioned that the I.O. and the doctor have not been examined and, therefore, the appellant Ram Prasad Harijan deserves to be acquitted. Similar ground has been taken in the memo of appeal on behalf of appellant Jai Prakash Das. It is asserted that only allegation against him was that he got the appellant Ram Prasad Harijan free by untiding the Gamchha from his hands.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the prosecution story appears to be absurd. My attention was also drawn to the fact that when appellant Ram Prasad Harijan is said to have been caught hold and kept confined for the whole night, it is not possible that he was confined and was not assaulted by the neighbours. In this context the evidences of PWs 1 to 3, who were said to be neighbours and having been declared hostile by the prosecution, give adverse inference. It is also submitted that the complaint case, filed for the occurrence dated 4.7.96 by the appellant Ram Prasad Harijan, in wh