The Court held that significant contradictions in the victim's testimony and the failure to examine the investigation officer undermined the credibility of the prosecution, leading to the appellant's acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

NAVNEET KUMAR, J.

This appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 22^nd February 2006 and order of sentence dated 24^th February 2006, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Seraikella-Kharsawan in S.T. No.10 of 2003, arising out of Chandil P.S. Case No.54 of 2002, corresponding to G.R. Case No.317 of 2002, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been acquitted from charge under Section 313 of IPC while convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of eight years.

2. The prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR by the prosecutrix/victim (PW-6) has stated in her statement on 17.05.2002 that about eight days ago, she was alone in her house and at that time, the accused came inside her house and committed rape upon her after alluring to perform marriage with her. After the accused left away, the prosecutrix disclosed this fact to her parents, who went to the house of the accused asking him to marry the prosecutrix, but he refused to do so.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, a formal FIR was instituted vide Chandil P.S. Case No.54 of 2002, which was registered under Section 376 of IPC and after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted under sections 376 and 313 of the IPC and thereafter cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and after commitment, the learned Sessions Judge, Seraikella framed the charges on 06^th May 2003 under sections 376 and 313 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , where the accused appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and the learned trial court after conducting the full- fledged trial, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is under challenge in this appeal.

4. Heard Smt. Jasvinder Mazumdar, learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of appellant and learned APP Sanjay Kumar Srivastava appearing on behalf of the State.

Arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants:

5. Learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the learned trial court did not apply its judicial mind in appreciation of the deposition of the victim/prosecutrix-PW-6 in the right perspective and her entire submission becomes doubtful when the appellant having been charged under Section 313 and 376 of IPC and acquitted under Section 313 of IPC, but convicted under Section 376 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , ignoring a drastic improvement in the version of the victim from her earlier statement in the course of the trial particularly from her version in the FIR.

6. It has been pointed out that there was no whisper of any kind of forceful abortion within the meaning of section 313 of the IPC in the FIR but later on, during her deposition, she stated a different story stating that about three months ago, the appellant had committed rape with her in the jungle (forest) and thereafter he had inserted an wooden stick in her private part, but the learned trial court disbelieved her second part of the version and acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under section 313 of IPC for committing the offence of causing miscarriage without the consent of PW-6 ignoring the fact that her entire statement gets vitiated because of the false story improved by her in her testimony during the course of the trial.

7. Further, it has also been argued on behalf of the appellant that PW-2 Mohari Mahato, PW-3 Bharat Mahato, PW-4 Dinesh Maha