The main legal point established in the judgment is that in a case of rape, evidence of the prosecutrix, if reliable and competent, is sufficient to base a finding of conviction. The court also emphasized that even the slightest penetration is sufficient to constitute the offence of rape, and the depth of penetration is immaterial.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Learned Counsel for the appellants Mr. Sumir Prasad and Mr. A.N. Deo in the respective Criminal Appeals and Mr. Ravi Prakash, Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.

2. It is a case in which all the four F.I.R. named accused persons (appellants herein) have been convicted for the charge of rape under Section 376 of the I.P.C.; further house trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment for life under Section 450 of the I.P.C. and also under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by the judgment of conviction dated 20th December 1996 rendered in Sessions Trial No.148/1996 arising out of Katkamsandi P.S. Case No.77/1995, corresponding to G.R. No.1365/1995, T.R. No.739/1996 by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Hazaribagh. All these appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life against their convictions under each of these Sections. Sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The prosecution case is based upon the Fardbeyan of the prosecutrix (P.W.5) recorded at 14 hours on 17th August 1995 at Pelawal Outpost by Sub-Inspector Arun Kumar Singh, Incharge, Pelawal O.P. The gist of the allegation is as under :-

The informant ''X'' (name withheld) daughter of Thuma Dhan of village Haram, P.S. Katkamsandi, District Hazaribag gave her statement in presence of her mother Duggi and co-villager Budhuwa Oraon son of Late Ruiya Oraon at Pelawal O.P. that on Wednesday at 4 P.M. while she was alone in her house, since her father had gone to his relative to Piti village and her mother had gone out for manual labour, 4 accused persons of her village namely (1) Lokan Mahto son of Chaman Mahto (2) Konjha Mahto son of Badan Mahto (3) Khelwa Mahto son of Chaita Mahto and (4) Bhunua Mahto son of Jataha Mahto came to her house. Lokan Mahto caught hold of her, Konjha Mahto caught hold of her leg and fell her down and then Lokan Mahto committed rape upon her. Thereafter Konjha Mahto also committed rape upon her. Then they went outside and stood at the door when Khelwa Mahto and Bhunua Mahto also committed rape upon her one after the other. They left thereafter threatening that if she disclosed the occurrence to anyone, she would be killed. Out of fear she remained in her house and after sunset when her mother returned, she disclosed the occurrence to her. Since it was night, in the morning she walked down to Pelawal P.S. and gave her statement.

4. On institution of formal F.I.R. and upon conclusion of investigation, all these four appellants were chargesheeted for trial by chargesheet no.46/1995 dated 31st August, 1995 under Sections 376/450/34 I.P.C. and Section 3(1-12) of the S.C/S.T (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Since the case was triable by the court of Sessions, it was committed to the learned court of Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act where on 21st May 1996 charges were framed under Sections 376 and 450 of the I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Accused denied their involvement and claimed to be tried on the charges being read over and explained to them in Hindi.

5. During course of trial prosecution examined altogether seven witnesses named as under :-

1. Bhado Oraon

2. Sawan Oraon

3. Dukhi Devi @ Duggi Devi

4. Radhwa Oraon

5. Prosecutrix ''X'' (name withheld)

6. Arun Kumar Singh

7. Dr.(Mrs.) Chinta Kumari Verma

It also adduced certain documentary evidence up to Ext.3 as under :-

Ext.1 - Fardbeyan

Ext.2 - Formal F.I.R.

Ext.3 - Medical report of victim.

All proved without objection.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied their involvement and claimed themselves to be innoc