The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the judge to either acquit or convict the accused at the conclusion of the trial, and the limitations on using admonition without holding the accused guilty of the specific offence.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. – Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Addl. PP for the State.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against Judgment dated 20.12.2005 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar, in S.T. No. 290 of 2005, whereby and whereunder, the court below has only observed that the prosecution established the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants but without in any express words convicting the appellants, released the appellants Dinesh Yadav and Bachu Yadav @ Bachu Mahto after due admonition.

3. The prosecution case in brief as mentioned in the complaint of the complainant that on 14.01.2005, the appellant-accused Dinesh Yadav came to the house of the complainant at about 4.00 P.M. and requested her to give a piece of meat to be tasted by the accused. As the complainant refused the request, it is alleged that the appellant Dinesh Yadav committed rape on her. It is further the case of prosecution that when the husband of the complainant came on the next Sunday of the said incident then, the complainant went to house of accused along with her husband at about 10.00 A.M. to complain about the appellants-accused. Then the appellants-accused along with co-accused person assaulted the complainant and her husband. She then went to police station but as police did not take any action, she filed the complaint case in court.

4. After the cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the court of sessions. Charges for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 452 and 323 of Indian Penal Code was framed against the appellant Dinesh Yadav and Charge for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 504 of Indian Penal Code was framed against the appellant no. 2- Bachu Yadav @ Bachu Mahto and upon the accused-appellants'' pleading not guilty, they were put to trial.

5. In support of its case, prosecution examined four witnesses. P.W.2- Amla Devi is the complainant. She has stated that the occurrence took place at 4.00 P.M. The appellant no. 1 requested her to give a piece of meat and when she refused the request, the appellant no. 1 abused and assaulted her and when she raised alarm, the appellant fled away. She called her husband and her husband came on the next Sunday of the said incident. Then she went to the house of the appellants to complain that the appellant no. 1 assaulted her. At this stage the PW 2 was declared hostile. In her cross examination, on being put leading question by the prosecution, she denied that she mentioned in her complaint that the appellant committed rape on her.

6. P.W.1- Laru Mahto is the husband of the alleged victim. He has stated that on his returning to his home on Sunday, the PW2 told that the appellant Dinesh Yadav assaulted her. When P.W.1 discussed this matter with the appellant- Dinesh Yadav, he abused P.W.1. P.W.1 was also declared hostile. In his cross examination, he has stated that they have compromised the matter.

7. P.W.3- Sanjhia Devi has stated that at 4.00 PM, she saw that Dinesh Yadav was assaulting P.W.2. Thereafter, the P.W.2 went with her husband P.W.1 to the house of the appellants and the appellants pushed him. In her cross examination, she has stated that the occurrence of assault took place outside the house.

8. P.W.4-Babita Devi has stated that the appellant assaulted P.W.2. and she was also declared hostile.

9. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, statements were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, where the appellants denied the circumstances appearing in evidence against them. The learned court below after considering the evidence on record observed that the prosecution has established the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code against both the appellants and thereafter went on discussing that there has been compromise between the parties but as the signature of one of the affected parties namely Laru Mahto was not appearing on the compromise petition, the