The court affirmed that the victim's testimony, corroborated by medical evidence, is sufficient for conviction in rape cases, even with minor inconsistencies.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the judgment of conviction dated 18.05.2007 and sentence dated 24.05.2007, passed in Sessions Trial No. 36 of 2006 by Shri Narendra Kumar Srivastava, then learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga, by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for Seven (07) years and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen thousand) and in default of payment of fine, he was further sentenced to undergo R.I. for Two (02) years. However, the learned Trial Court has further directed that both the sentences will run consecutively and the fine, if so recovered, will be paid to the minor prosecutrix, i.e. the Victim Girl ‘X’ for her welfare and need. It was further directed that the period undergone by the Convict in course of investigation and trial will be deducted from the main sentence.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 23.12.2005, while the prosecutrix [(Name not mentioned in this judgment in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Nipun Saxena and another v. Union of India and others” reported in (2019) 2 Supreme Court Cases 703 and Notification No. 23/2023/R&S/JHC dated 20.12.2023 of the Jharkhand High Court, was going to her new house from her old house for sleeping. At that time Azan of 8 P.M. was being held and at the same time appellant-Ramnandan Gaderi @ Ramanand Pal was hiding himself standing near Jack Fruit tree (Kathal Tree) from before and as soon as prosecutrix was crossing the Kathal Tree, then Ramnandan Gaderi @ Ramanand Pal asked the prosecutrix to sleep with him. On this prosecutrix refused and then appellant-Ramnandan Gaderi @ Ramanand Pal lured that she will become his wife, thereupon again prosecutrix refused and went to her new house and slept there and left the door open, as her old grandmother was to arrive and Dhibri’’ was burning in the room. In the meantime she felt that someone slept beside her. The prosecutrix woke up and saw in the light of Dhibri that the accused was sleeping beside her. She tried to force him to go out, but Ramnandan Gaderi dragged her and thrashed her on the Cot and by threatening to kill, the accused Ramnandan Gaderi forcibly removed all her clothes from her body, and when she wanted to raise Hulla then he threatened her and thereafter, he forcibly committed rape upon her, due to which semen and blood oozed out from her private parts. When she tried to cry due to pain, then the accused-appellant Ramnandan Gaderi @ Ramanand Pal told her to remain silent and induced her to give sweets, clothes etc. and further threatened her not to tell anything to anybody otherwise he will kill her and due to which she kept silence. It is further alleged that on the next day she washed her clothes due to fear that somebody might knew. On 27.12.2005, as usual in the night again she came to her new house to sleep, then the accused Ramnandan Gaderi again entered into her house and again induced and threatened her and removed her pant and Ramnandan Gaderi also removed his full- pant and thereafter raped her. In the meantime, her grandmother arrived there and seeing her, Ramnandan Gaderi, after dashing her, fled away. Thereafter, she narrated the story of earlier rape and subsequent rape to her grand-mother and then grandmother informed the same to the mother of accused Ramnandan Gaderi. Thereafter, Ramnandan Gaderi again threatened to kill them as her father had gone outside along with lamb for grazing. Thereafter, she informed the village Chowkidar who informed the police and accordingly, at village Chandlaso Kuru Police took her fard-bayan.

3. Heard Mr. Dilip Kumar Prasad, learned counsel on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned A.P.P for the State.

4. It is submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of