The conviction for rape can stand on the sole testimony of the victim if it inspires confidence, despite deficiencies in the investigation process.

JUDGMENT :

This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the judgment of conviction dated 16.07.2005 and sentence dated 20.07.2005 respectively passed by Sri Anant Kumar Singh then learned Additional Sessions Judge—I Sahibganj in S.C. No. 296 of 1985 by which the appellant was convicted for the charge under section 376 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven (07) years for the offence under section 376 of the I.P.C and to pay the fine of Rs. 2000/-.

However the learned Court below has acquitted one Bhado Marandi for the charge under section 342 of I.P.C.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, as recorded by A.S.I. R.M.Singh at 12.00 P.M. is that in the night of 01/03/1984 while the Informant alongwith her husband and mother-in-law had gone to visit the Shivratri Mela around 8:00 pm in the village Pathalgatta and that while going round the mela she and her mother-in-law were separated from her husband and in course of search for her husband and mother-in-law in mela she was forcibly dragged towards the western field below palm-tree and the Informant was forcibly raped by accused Khuchru Marandi. It has further been alleged that while she and her mother-in-law were raising hulla but none had come to her rescue and the accused forcibly raped her without her consent and while the accused tried to again rape her, then her husband arrived and apprehended the appellant Khuchiru Marandi. Therefore her husband caught hold of the accused Khuchru Marandi and hit him by the Lathi and handed over him to the Pradhan of the village pathalghatta . It has further been alleged that when she and her husband wanted to lodge the case in the police station but the Pradhan i.e. accused Bhado Marandi wrongfully stopped them in the name of Panchayati . It has further been alleged that the accused Bhado Marandi happens to be the Pradhan of village who assured them to hold village panchayati to settle the matter. However in the meantime the A.S.I. of police station arrived there and her fardbeyan was recorded by him.

On the basis of fardbeyan, a case was registered vide Borio P.S. case No. 31/84, under section 342 and 376 of the I.P.C. against accused Khuchru Marandi and Bhado Marandi.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in eye of law. It is submitted that the impugned judgment and sentence passed by the learned Court below is bad in law as well as in facts. It is submitted that the impugned judgment and sentence passed by the learned court below is not maintainable in the facts and circumstance of the case. It is submitted that the learned court below has passed the impugned judgment and sentence mechanically. It is submitted that the learned court below has passed the impugned judgment and sentence only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. It is submitted that the learned court below has not appreciated the evidence on record in their right perspective and as such, has come to an erroneous finding. It is submitted that the learned court below has failed to take into consideration that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is submitted that the learned court below has failed to take into consideration that t