JUDGMENT :- The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 27th February 2004 passed in Sessions Trial No. 410 of 2001, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence under sections 341/354 of the IPC.

2. The case was registered on the basis of the complaint initially filed by the prosecutrix before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, which on being forwarded to the police under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. was registered for the offence under sections 341, 354 and 376/511 of the IPC.

Case of the prosecution is that negotiation of the complainant's marriage with one Girish Mardi Echra of Jadugora was finalized according to the social custom. On 11-4-1999 the elder brother and another relative of the complainant had gone to the house of Girish Mardi for performance of some pre-marriage ceremony. In the evening of the same day, the complainant and her friends namely, Sarswati Murmur and Kumari Bali had gone for the evening walk. At that time, the appellant Lal Mohan Hansda accosted the complainant on the road and caught hold of her hands. It is alleged that the appellant had tried to undress the complainant and to commit rape on her, but on her alarms and the alarms raised by her friends, the appellant fled away after putting vermilion on the complainant's forehead. The complainant's mother and another person arrived there on hearing her alarms and took her to their house. The matter was reported to the village head. A Panchayati was convened and in presence of the panchayati, the appellant had confessed his guilt and had promised to compensate the family of the complainant. As a result of the above incident, the marriage of the complainant which was settled with Girish Mardi had broken. The appellant had eventually backed out from his assurance of compensating the family of the complainant.

3. Charge against the appellant was framed for the aforesaid offences to which he did not plead guilty. His case in defence was of total denial of the alleged occurrence.

4. At the trial, altogether eleven witnesses were examined by the prosecution including the complainant. However, investigating officer of the case has not been examined. Out of several witnesses, PWs 3 and 4, namely the complainant's friends, had failed to support the prosecution's case and consequently, they were declared hostile by the prosecution. PW 2 was tendered for her cross-examination PW5. Surayi Majhi, who was though examined by the prosecution, but he too failed to support the prosecution's case and was declared hostile by the prosecution. The complainant was examined as PW 1. In her desposition, she has stated that on 11-4-1999 at about 6.00PM, while she had gone along with her two friends to Kheda Guttu, the accused Lal Mohan Hansda accosted her suddenly on the road and tore her clothes and wanted to commit rape upon her and when she raised alarm, he put vermilion on her forehead and fled away. She adds that on her alarms, her mother and sister-in-law arrived and took her to their house. She adds further that a panchayati was convened in the village on her complaint, but when the appellant refused to comply with the decision of the panchayati, she lodged her complaint in the Court on 22-6-1999 and that her statement was recorded by the police. In her cross-examination, she has named both her friends namely, Sarswati Murmur and Kumari Ball who were present at the time of the alleged occurrence. Evidence of PWs 6, 7 and 8 are hearsay. These witnesses have stated that they had heard that the appellant Lal Mohan Hansda had forcibly put vermilion on the forehead of the complainant.

PW 9, who happens to be the brother of the complainant, affirms to have heard about the occurrence from his sister namely the complainant. He also affirms to have reported the incident to the village Head and panchayati was convened in presence of the appellant Lal Mohan Hansda, but the appellant did not abide by the decisions of the panchayati. The evidence

Click Here to Read the rest of this document