JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. D.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mrs. Laxmi Murmu, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.05.2006 passed by Sri Amitabh Kumar, Sessions Judge, Hazaribag in Sessions Trial No. 300 of 1999, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 376 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five (05) years with a fine of Rs.5000/-. In default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for five months.

3. The FIR has been lodged through the fardbeyan of the informant namely Munni Devi @ Muniya Devi (P.W.-4) wife of Dilchand Yadav (P.W.-1) on 01.05.1998 which has been registered as Hazaribag (Sadar) Muffasil P.S. Case No.179 of 1998 under Sections 376 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. As per the FIR on 26.04.1998 in the morning at about 6.00 a.m. the victim went to Kanhari Forest for collecting Mahua. The appellant who is a co-villager has suddenly caught hold her and put her down on the ground and torn her blouse and separated the cloths from her body. On raising alarm one of the co-villager namely Ashish Mehta (P.W.3) came to rescue her and on seeing Ashish Mehta coming towards the victim, the appellant fled away by threatening her not to disclose the incident to anybody. Thereafter she along with Ashish Mehta came to village and narrated the incident to other co-villagers. Panchayti was called but the appellant had not turned up and as such nothing could be done and she had been advised to lodge FIR. Accordingly, FIR was lodged on 01.05.1998 after five days of the incident.

5. After conclusion of investigation, the appellant had been chargesheeted under Sections 376 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code to which cognizance has been taken and the case has been committed to the court of sessions. The charge has been framed to which appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To substantiate the prosecution story, altogether five witnesses have been examined.

P.W.1-Dilchand Yadav is the husband of the victim. He has been informed that his wife is weeping, then he came along with his father (P.W.2) and enquired on which she disclosed the indecent behavior of the appellant and he has shown him the torn blouse.

P.W.2-Dharam Gope father-in-law of the victim, has deposed on the same line. P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 are witness of the torn blouse and heard the story narrated by the victim.

P.W.3-Ashish Kumar @ Ashish Mehta is the claimed eye witness and admitted that he came there for rescuing her on raising alarm by the victim. He has deposed that he was collecting Mahua on Kanhari Rock near Chhotka Pool at about 6.00 a.m. and he heard alarm raised by the victim. On hearing alarm he rushed there and saw Pradip Mehta sitting over her. Munni Devi was weeping. On seeing me the appellant fled away from there after threating her not to disclose about the incident. The Panchayati was held but nothing could be happened due to non- appearance of the appellant. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that Munni Devi is sister-in-law in village relation and he is a next door neighbour. At the time of occurrence, he was 8t h class student and he has denied the suggestion of having illicit relationship with the victim.

P.W.4-Munni Devi @ Muniya Devi is the victim and the informant and she has disclosed the narratives as written in the FIR. She has also been suggested of having illicit relationship with P.W.3 which has been denied by her.

P.W.5-Raj Kumar Yadav is the investigating officer and has investigated the case. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he has not examined the body of the victim and he has also not seized the torn blouse.

7. The argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is a discrepancy in the statement of P.W.3 regarding the posture of the appellant. Further non