ORDER :

Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Pathak, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Niraj Narayan Mishra, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

2. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 17.02.2010 and the order of sentence dated 18.02.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pakur in Sessions Case No. 148/ 2008 of 126/ 2009, whereby and whereunder, the appellant was held guilty for the offence under sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and sentenced him to undergo RI for a period of seven years under Section 376 IPC.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, as per the written report of the prosecutrix or the alleged victim or PW-3 (name concealed) given on 28.03.2008 to the officer-in-charge of Pakuria police station, District-Pakur is that the prosecutrix is aged about 19 years old. Prosecutrix further stated that last year in the month of July, 2007 she was alone in her house and her mother had gone to visit relative and in that particular night at about 10:00 p.m. when she was sleeping, then the accused Boro Hansda entered and forcibly committed rape upon her. When she raised alarm then the accused shut her mouth and threatened her with dire consequences. She started weeping, then the accused assured to marry her but told not to disclose it to anyone. Victim further stated that due to fear and due to her prestige, she remained silent. By taking the advantage of this situation the accused Boro Hansda kept relationship with her and due to this relationship she became pregnant. Thereafter, when she was pregnant for about three months then she told to the accused but, first of all he was happy and then he refused. Then, she told about the occurrence to her brothers and mother. Victim has further stated that a social meeting was held in the village but, the accused Boro Hansda and his father refused to come. Thereafter, she went to the house of the accused persons several times but both the accused and his father told her to get away.

4. On the basis of the written report of the prosecutrix, Pakur (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 37/08 dated 28.03.08 was lodged under sections 493, 376 and 323/34 of IPC against the accused Boro Hansda and his father Debidhan Hansda. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against both the accused persons under section 493, 376 and 323/34 of IPC and cognizance of the offences were taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions. Charges were framed under section 323/34 of IPC against both the accused persons and accused Boro Hansda was separately charged under sections 376 and 493 of IPC. Trial was held and at the conclusion of the trial the accused or the appellant herein was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal.

5. Prosecution has examined all together five witnesses in support of its case out of whom PW-3 is the prosecutrix or the victim; PW-1 is Gulaj Marandi and PW-2 is Bishwanath Murmu, both are hostile witnesses; PW-4 is Suniram Murmu and PW-5 is Dr. Mary Thelma Dan, who had examined the victim girl. Defense had examined D.W.-1 Prameshwar Murmu as a defense witness.

6. PW-3 is the prosecutrix or the victim of the case. She has stated in her examination-in-chief that the occurrence took place about 1½ years back in the night at about 01:00 O’clock. On that date, she was alone in her house and her mother had gone to visit her relative and she was sleeping. Accused Boro Hansda entered into her house and forcibly committed rape upon her. She tried to raise alarm but the accused closed her mouth and told not to raise alarm, he will marry her. Thereafter, the accused used to visit her and made physical relationship with her, due to which, she became pregnant. Victim further stated that after three months of her pregnancy, she informed to the accused, on which, he refused to marry her and then she informed her mother and brother. The