The court upheld the conviction against the appellant based solely on the victim's credible testimony, emphasizing that societal pressures do not negate the legal obligation to report sexual offenses.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Mrs. Neeharika Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Ms. Kumari Rashmi, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. However, no one appears on behalf of the informant.

2.The name of the victim, her parents, and her relatives is deliberately not being disclosed to protect the identity of the victim.

3.This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of sentence dated 20.11.2003 passed by learned 6^th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 139 of 2003 whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for seven years.

4.The case of the prosecution is based upon the statement made by the victim before the Bada Babu, Masalia Police Station on 14.03.2002 at 13:15 hrs, wherein she has stated that she is 14 years of age and a student of 8th standard at Palojori Girls High School. On the night of 12.03.2002, there was a Shivratri Mela near Shiv Mandir, where her father was running a sweet shop and she was also present. At about 08:30 P.M., after informing her father, she stepped out of the shop to relieve herself and while she was sitting for the same in the lane, a bit away from the well, her neighbour, Ravindra Prasad, son of Sahdeb Prasad Bhagat, suddenly caught hold of her, pressed her mouth, and dragged her to the barren (parati) land near a mango tree and the accused forced her to lie down on the ground. Even after the denial by the victim, the accused removed her undergarment (pant), he also removed his pant and started pressing her breasts, and told the victim to keep mum, otherwise she would be liquidated. The victim got scared, started weeping then she was scolded by the accused, who then committed rape on her person. Meanwhile, when sound of footsteps of some persons started coming towards them, then the accused fled away after wearing his pant. The victim, after wearing her undergarment, came to her home by weeping and narrated the incident to her mother and aunt.

5.The victim also stated that two months prior, she had gone to the Darbari Mela along with her father then, the accused did “Bura Kaam” with her by taking her to a lonely place, and the accused asked her not to disclose this fact to anyone and told her that he would marry her.

6.It is further stated by the victim that on 12.03.2002, her mother told her father and uncle about the entire incident. Then her father went to the village and shared the incident with other villagers. The villagers told her father that the matter would be sorted out through a meeting in the village. On 13.03.2002, a meeting of the villagers was held, but as the issue was not resolved on that day, again meeting was convened today, i.e., 14.03.2002. However, matter could not be resolved and this is the reason assigned for the delayed intimation to the police station.

7.Upon the aforesaid statement of the victim, an F.I.R. being Masalia P.S. Case No. 10 of 2002, dated 14.03.2002, under Section 376 of the IPC has been registered against the appellant. After due investigation, the charge sheet has been submitted, and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The Sessions Court, vide order dated 30.04.2003, frame charge against the accused under Section 376 of the IPC , to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses in the present case and apart from that, following documents have also been brought on record.

Ext.-1 Is the signature of P.W.-1 on panchnama