The prosecution failed to establish credible evidence for the conviction of rape and wrongful confinement, leading to the appeal's success and the quashing of the trial court's judgment.

JUDGMENT :

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 15.05.2006 and sentence dated 17.05.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Sessions Case No.101 of 2004 whereby and whereunder, the sole appellant has been held guilty for the offence under sections 347/376 of INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to undergo R.I. of 1 year for the offence under section 347 of I.P.C. and R.I. of 7 years for the offence under section 376 of IPC. Both sentences are directed to run concurrently.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a narrow campus as per written report of prosecutrix-cum-victim is that on 30th June, 2003, the present appellant met the prosecutrix in her village and ensured her to procure matriculation certificate and asked to come on 02.07.2003 at Fatehpur, T.K. Gram, thereafter, they will go to Jamtara. Relying upon his assurance, the prosecutrix went to T.K. Gram, Fatehpur after disclosing the above fact to her sister-in-law Phool Kumari (PW-5) and reached there about 2:00 PM, where Nazrul Ansari was waiting her. After some conversation with the prosecutrix, the appellant left the place saying that he is going to manage a motorcycle to go to Jamtara and asked her to wait till his arrival. It is further alleged that the appellant returned that place in the evening and requested her to stay over the night in the forest quarter of his friend, Ram Payere Das (Forest Guard) situated at village Muridih Salbagan and in the next day morning, they will proceed to Jamtara. It is further alleged that in the night, the appellant brought some food and both took meal but at about 9:00 PM, the present appellant entered into the room of the prosecutrix and sat on her cot and forcibly committed rape upon her. It is further alleged that subsequently the forest guard Ram Payere Das also committed rape upon her. She was threatened to be killed by both the accused persons, if she attempts to raise alarm or disclose the incident to anyone. It is further alleged that after departure of forest guard Ram Payere Das, the appellant again came inside the room and committed rape upon her and on the next day morning i.e. on 03.07.2003, brought her to Jamtara for providing matriculation certificate and again sexually abused and assaulted her. The appellant also obtained signature of the prosecutrix on some plain paper and threatened her to take her life, if she discloses the above incident to anyone. It is further alleged that after commission of rape, the accused assured to solemnize marriage with the prosecutrix, she remained silent due to fear for a month, thereafter, disclosed the incident to her parents and brother and lodged this case.

3. On the basis of above information, the FIR was registered for the offence under sections 347/376 (G) of INDIAN PENAL CODE against both the accused persons including present appellant.After conclusion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against both the accused persons and learned trial court, after conclusion of trial, extending the benefit of doubt to the accused, Ram Payree Das (forest guard) has acquitted him but held the present appellant guilty for the offences under sections 376 and 347 of IPC and sentenced him as stated above.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that except the prosecutrix (P.W.4), all the witnesses are hearsay witnesses. The testimony of the victim, who was already married prior to the alleged occurrence is tainted with falsehood. It is not proved by the prosecution that the victi