This criminal appeal is against the Judgment dated 23.4.2001 passed by Sri Narendra Kumar Shrivastava, the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in Sessions Trial No.111 of 1999 /19 of 2001 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and further directed to pay a fine of rupees five thousand (5,000/-) by way of compensation within three months from the date of this judgment and default of making payment of fine, further sentenced of R.I. for a period of two years which will run consecutively.

2. In short the prosecution case is that the informant Lalita Devi wife of Sri Bijay Rana of village Khuntabad, P.S. Bengabad, District Giridih, on 11.2.99 at about 6.30 A.M. stated before the Officer-in-charge of Bengabad Police Station that on 22.1.1999, her mother-in-law had gone for Saraswati Puja and her father-in-law also went to the relation’s house and the informant was alone in her house. In the meantime, Karu Yadav (appellant) was grazing his cattle in his field near the house of the informant. At about 4.P.M., Karu Yadav came to the informant and demanded drinking water from her. When the informant had gone inside of her house to bring water then Karu Yadav entered into her house and caught hold the informant forcibly and on the point of the dragger committed rape with her against her Will. Thereafter, he fled away. It is further stated that at about 5.P.M. mother-in-law returned to her house then the informant narrated the entire incidence to her. The mother-in-law of the informant told the same to the villagers and also to the guardian of Karu Yadav. After two days of the said occurrence, the father-in-law of the informant returned back from his relation’s house then he was also informed about the same. The father-in-law of the informant also told the villagers and to the guardian of Karu Yadav. The villagers told the father-in-law of the informant that matter will be decided by a Panchayat and further restrained the informant and her family members not to inform this matter to the police. But the villagers and guardian of the Karu Yadav deferred the Panchayati one or other plea for several times. Then the father-in-law of the informant informed Adabasi society of village Junglepura and given written report for deciding the matter. On 10.2.99 at about 7.00 A.M., when Karu Yadav was working in his field near the house of the informant

then four Aadiwasi of village-Junglepura came there and brought Karu Yadav before the Panchayati of Aadiwasi Society. Informant also went to the Adiwasi Panchayati along with her guardian but guardian of Karu Yadav did not come to the Adawasi Panchayati inspite of repeated calls. But Karu Yadav confessed his guilt before the Aadiwasi Panchayat and thereafter fled away from the Aadiwasi Panchayati. On the basis of this information, a case has been registered under Sections 448, 341 and 376 I.P.C. against Karu Yadav. After investigation, the I.O. has submitted charge-sheet under Section 376 I.P.C. only. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.

3. The accused person has pleaded not guilty and said about his false implication in this case due to previous enmity and further defence is that to grab his land measuring one acre which is near the house of the informant. The prosecution has examined seven witnesses to prove its case amongst them. P.W. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are declared hostile. P.W. 4 is mothers-in-law, P.W.5 is father-in-law of the informant and P.W.6 is informant herself and P.W.7 is I.O. of this case.

4. P.W.4 is mother-in-law of the informant. She has deposed that on the alleged date of occurrence she has gone to see Saraswati Puja and when she returned back at about 5 P.M., she sow her daughter-in-law, Lalita Devi victim was alone in her house. As soon as she returned back, her daughter-in-law narrated the entire aforesaid occurrence and told her that K