The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of corroborative evidence in cases of rape, the need for veracity and truthfulness in serious allegations, and the consideration of enmity between the parties in evaluating the evidence.

ORDER :

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 30.06.2004 and order of sentence dated 05.07.2004 passed by the court of 3rd Additional Distt. & Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Trial Nos. 347 of 2003 & 699 of 2003 whereby and where under the learned court below convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered to undergo R.I. for 7 years.

2. The prosecution case arose in the wake of beyan of the victim informant P.W. 6 (aged about 23 years at the time of recording fardbeyan) P.W. 6, whose statement was recorded by S.I. Shyam Lal Tudu on 23.08.2003 at Kathi Kund P.S. by 15 hours. She stated that she used to live with her parents’ house along with her husband at Bichiya Pahari. She further stated that her father-in-law is living in the village Pokhariya and she along with her husband used to go to her in-laws place off and on and they have no any child. In her beyan she alleged that on 21.08.2003, her father-in-law, P.W. 3- Chhota Bhim Hansda and appellant Munshi Hansda had gone to Kathikund hat (market) and after coming back from the hat both stayed in the house of the prosecutrix in the night. On the next day at 3.00 p.m. informant was making meal and her husband, parents and other persons had gone to field for doing agricultural work and her father-in-law, Chhota Bhim Hansda had gone outside to attend nature’s call. Meanwhile, accused Munshi Hansda closed the door from inside and finding her alone in the house and all of a sudden forcibly grounded her and committed rape on her. She raised alarm and thereafter, accused person opened the door and fled away. After some time, her father-in-law came back home and the prosecutrix narrated him about the occurrence and when her husband and parents came back home from field, prosecutrix also narrated him about the alleged occurrence. Thereafter, informant convened a Pancahyati, but, the accused person did not honour the decision of the Panchayati rather accused threatened them to run away from the house at the point of arrow and bow and the informant stated that the cause of delay in lodging FIR was that there was a decision in the village : POKHARIYA (village of in-laws of the informant), but, the appellant Munshi Hansda refused to abide with the decision

3. On the basis of the beyan of the victim S.I. Kathi Kund registered a case drawing up a formal F.I.R. (Kathi Kund P.S. Case No. 46/2003) against the accused Munshi Hansda U/S. 376 of IPC. After investigation, I.O. has submitted the charge sheet against the accused appellant u/s 376 of IPC. Accordingly, learned C.J.M. took up cognizance and committed the case to the Court of Sessions after supplying the police paper of the accused person and learned Sessions Judge has transferred the case in the court of 3rd Additional Distt. & Sessions Judge, Dumka. The charge was framed on 01.12.2003 under section 376 of I.P.C. against the accused person and after the conclusion of the trial the learned court below passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence which is under challenge in this appeal.

4. Heard Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of appellant and Mrs. Niki Sinha, learned Spl.P.P. for the State.

Arguments on behalf of the Appellant

5. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the learned trial court has failed to consider the vital inconsistencies in the deposition of the witnesses including that the injury which was alleged to have been inflicted upon the victim as stated by the mother of the victim P.W. 4 is not substantiated by the medical evidence. Further, it has been pointed out that the informant victim had suppressed in her beyan that the appellant was related to the victim as her Bhaisur and