Julmi @ Julmi Harijan @ Bhutki vs The State of Bihar

S.M.M. Alam, J.—Criminal Appeal No. 165 of 2003 and Criminal Appeal No. 169 of 2003 are being taken up together as both the appeals arise out of the single judgment dated 11th February, 2003 passed by Sri Mahendra Narayan Singh, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No. 722/98/108/2001. In Cr. Appeal No. 165/2003, Julmi alias Julmi Harijan alias Bhutki is the appellant who has been convicted under Sections 115 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each in each of the sections. In Cr. Appeal No. 169/2003, Pappu Choudhary is the appellant who has been convicted under Sections 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years each in both the sections. The prosecution case, as per the fardbeyan of the informant Babi Kumari, daughter of Late Chakradhar Yadav of village Sardho Police Station Sabour District Bhagalpur recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Jai Ram Singh of Sabour Police Station on 7.7.1997, in brief, is that on 4.7.1997 (Friday) she was sleeping on a cot in the Angan (courtyard) of her house. The said Angan is an open place. Her mother was sleeping inside the house. At about 11.30 P.M. appellant Pappu Choudhary came there, put his hand on her mouth and threatened her to remain quiet otherwise she would be killed. He also told her that he would perform marriage with her. Thereafter he took her to a mango orchard and threw her on the ground in the said orchard and committed sexual intercourse with her against her will. Further case is that when she (informant) tried to raise Hulla the said Pappu Choudhary closed her mouth with his hand and threatened to kill her. He also promised to solemnize marriage with her. Further case is that on the next day the appellant took her at Boring of Bajrangi Yadav and confined her there. During the day time, the appellant used to watch her from outside and after sun-set he used to enter into the Boring. In this way, the appellant committed sexual intercourse with the informant on several times and during this period the informant was always threatened by the appellant. Further case is that on 7.7.1997 when the informant did not find Pappu Choudhary present at the Boring she came out from Boring and rushed to the house of her Mama Jagdish Yadav to whom she narrated the entire incident. Her Mama took her to the house of Deepak Babu who informed the police on telephone and then on arrival of the police, the informant (P.W. 3) gave her fardbeyan.

On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Sabour P.S. Case No. 134/ 97 under Sections 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code was instituted. The investigation of the case was handed over to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Jai Ram Singh (P.W. 4), who investigated the case and submitted charge-sheet against both the appellants. On the basis of the chargesheet cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Session. After commitment both the appellants were put on trial and by the impugned judgment, appellant Julmi Harijan was convicted under Sections 115 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of seven years each in each of the sections whereas appellant Pappu Choudhary was convicted under Sections 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years each in each of the sections.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the appellants have preferred these appeals.

From perusal of the lower court records, it appears that in support of the prosecution case, the prosecution has examined altogether nine witnesses, namely, P.W. 1 Paro Devi, P.W. 2 Manoj Yadav, P.W. 3 Babi Devi, P.W. 4 Jairam Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, P.W. 5 Jagdish Yadav, P.W. 6 Patto Yadav, P.W. 7 Deepak Kumar Singh, P.W. 8 Munna Yadav and P.W. 9 Dr. Binod Kumar Choudhary. Out of the abovesaid witnesses, P.W. 3 is the informant of this case, P.W. 1 is the mother of the informant, P.W. 2 is the brother of the informant, P.W. 4 is the Investigating Officer of this case and P.W. 9 is the Medical Officer, who examined the victim girl, namely, Babi Kumari (P.W. 3). Rest witnesses i.e. P.Ws. 5, 6, 7 and 8 are hostile witnesses. In addition to the oral evidence, the signatures of the informant on the fardbeyan as well as on her statement made u/s 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been marked as Ext. 1 and Ext. 2, respectively and the medical report of P.W. 9 has been marked as Ext. 3. On behalf of the defence, one witness was examined as D.W. 1, namely, Hero Yadav.

It has been submitted on behalf of appellant Julmi Harijan that his implication was afterthought as no whisper has been made in the fardbeyan (Ext. 1) of the informant Babi Kumari regarding participation of appellant Julmi Harijan in committing or abetting or arriving at an agreement with appellant Pappu Choudhary to commit the offence of kidnapping and rape. He submitted that Section 115 of the Indian Penal Code is not at all attracted in this case and so far his conviction u/s 120B of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is nothing on record to show that there was any meeting of minds with appellant Julmi Harijan and appellant Pappu Choudhary. He submitted that unless it is proved that there was any meeting of minds between both the appellants, appellant Julmi Harijan cannot be convicted for the offence u/s 120B of the I.P.C. and as such, his conviction under Sections 115 and 120B of the I.P.C. is bad in law and must be set aside.

On behalf of appellant Pappu Choudhary, it has been argued that from the materials available on record, no offence u/s 366A of the Indian Penal Code is made out against him and as such, his conviction u/s 366A of the I.P.C. is bad in law. He further submitted that so far as allegation of rape is concerned, it appears from the materials on record that the victim (P.W. 3) was a consenting party and so, it cannot be held that the appellant has committed rape on the victim against her will. So he argued that appellant Pappu Choudhary also deserves to be acquitted. His alternative argument is that in case the appellant Pappu Choudhary is found to have committed the offence then in the background of the story that the victim was a consenting party, appellant Pappu Choudhary may be punished for the period already undergone by him as under-trial prisoner.

First of all, I would like to see whether the finding of the learned trial court holding appellant Julmi Harijan alias Bhutki guilty under Sections 115 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code is correct. From perusal of the charge it appears that Julmi Harijan alias Bhutki has been charged for the offence punishable u/s 115 of the I.P.C. in the following manner:- "That you on or about 4th July, 1997 at about 11.30 P.M. at village Sardho Police Station Sabour District Bhagalpur abetted commission by appellant Pappu Choudhary of an offence of rape punishable with imprisonment for life which the said offence was committed in consequence of abetment and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 115 of the Indian Penal Code". He further stands charged u/s 120B of the I.P.C, in the following manner:- "That you on or about the same day, time and place agreed to cause to be done an illegal act to be raped and the same was in pursuance of the agreement and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 120B of the Indian Penal Code". It should be mentioned here that the charges are not in proper form and language.

The submission of the learned Advocate of the appellants is that from the evidence available on record, both the charges do not stand proved. He submitted that as per the provision of Section 115 of the I.P.C, this section applies when the offence abetted could not be committed in pursuance of abetment but evidence on record shows that the alleged offence of kidnapping and rape which is said to have been abetted by appellant Julmi Harijan had been committed by appellant Pappu Choudhary. So, there is no application of this section in the facts and circumstances of the case. The argument advanced by the learned counsel of appellant Julmi Harijan appears to be correct.

Section 115 of the Indian Penal Code runs as follows:-

Whoever abets the commission of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, shall, if that offence be not committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine and if any act for which the abettor is liable in consequence of the abetment, and which causes hurt to any person, is done, the abettor shall be liable to imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to fourteen years, and shall also be liable to fine.

The plain reading of Section 115 of the I.P.C, shows that this section applies when the offence abetted could not be committed in consequence of the abetment and if committed, the section will not apply. I, therefore, feel no difficulty in holding that appellant Julmi Harijan was wrongly charged for the offence u/s 115 of the I.P.C, and as such, he deserves to be acquitted u/s 115 of the I.P.C.

Regarding charge u/s 120B of the Indian Penal Code, it was argued on behalf of appellant Julmi Harijan that there is absolutely no evidence on record to establish that the offence of rape by appellant Pappu Choudhary was committed in pursuance of an agreement arrived at between the said Pappu Choudhary and this appellant Julmi Harijan. It was futher argued that only evidence available in this regard is that this appellant Julmi Harijan was standing near the first place of occurrence and was doing the work of C.I.D. at the time when appellant Pappu Choudhary was committing rape on the victim girl, namely, Babi Kumari (PW. 3). It was further argued that this evidence of P.W. 3 is very shaky and cannot be believed in view of the fact that the fardbeyan of Babi Kumari which is the basis of this case does not mention that appellant Julmi Harijan was also involved in the commission of offence of kidnapping and rape at any stage.

From perusal of the fardbeyan of P.W. 3 Babi Kumari, it appears that the name of appellant Julmi Harijan does not figure in the said fardbeyan. However, in the statement of Babi Kumari made u/s 164, Cr. P.C. she has simply stated that Julmi Harijan alias Bhutki was a C.I.D. except that nothing was told by Babi Kumari about appellant Julmi Harijan but her deposition shows that she developed her statement and deposed that where Pappu Choudhary was committing rape on her, appellant Julmi Harijan was standing at a distance of about five hands. He was doing the work of C.I.D so that no one may come to that side (P.W. 3 Para 1 last four lines). Almost similar statements were given by PWs. 1 and 2 regarding the role of appellant Julmi Harijan at the time of alleged occurrence but when I compare the above statement of PWs. 1, 2 and 3 regarding the role of appellant Julmi Harijan with the fardbeyan and the statement of the informant made u/s 164, Cr.PC, I find that there is definite development in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses regarding the role of appellant Julmi Harijan and as such, the evidence of PWs. 1, 2 and 3 regarding the complicity of appellant Julmi Harijan with the alleged offence is very shaky and doubtful. Moreover, I find that there is no evidence on record to establish that the offence of rape was committed by appellant Pappu Choudhary on the victim girl, namely, Babi Kumari in pursuance of an agreement with appellant Julmi Harijan. It has been submitted on behalf of the learned counsel of appellant Julmi Harijan that unless it is proved that the offence was committed in pursuance of an agreement of both the appellants, appellant Julmi Harijan cannot be convicted u/s 120B of the Indian Penal Code and in this regard the learned advocate of the appellant has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Muthammal and Others Vs. Maruthathal, .

On the other hand, the learned State Counsel has placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, and relying on the said decision, the learned State Counsel has argued that the fact that both the appellants had entered into criminal conspiracy to commit an offence can be proved by subsequent conduct of the accused and it is not essential that direct evidence must be brought on record in this regard. He submitted that the evidence on record shows that at the time of alleged occurrence when for the first time appellant Pappu Choudhary was committing rape on the victim girl Babi Kumari, this appellant Julmi Harijan was standing nearby the place of occurrence and was doing the work of C.I.D. He submitted that this conduct of appellant Julmi Harijan fulfilled the ingredients of Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and so he has rightly been convicted u/s 120B of the I.P.C. I am of the view that the evidence that on one occasion appellant Julmi Harijan was present near the place of occurrence when appellant Pappu Choudhary was committing rape on the victim girl is not sufficient to hold that there was an agreement between appellant Julmi Harijan and appellant Pappu Choudhary to commit the offence of rape on the victim Babi Kumari. I have already found above that the said evidence of the prosecution is very shaky as initially it was not the case of the prosecution that Julmi Harijan had also participated in the commission of the offence. It further transpires from the evidence on record that there is no evidence on record that at the time of kidnapping of the victim girl Babi Kumari, this appellant Julmi Harijan was also present. Likewise, there is no evidence on record that at the time when appellant Pappu Choudhary had committed rape on the victim girl in Mirchai field, this appellant was present there. Similarly, there is no evidence that this appellant was also present at the Pump house where the victim was kept confined by appellant Pappu Choudhary and was raped. Thus, the presence of appellant Julmi Harijan at one place may be a mere chance and on that basis appellant Julmi Harijan "cannot be held guilty u/s 120B of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, I hold that the prosecution has also failed to prove the charge u/s 120B of the Indian Penal Code against appellant Julmi Harijan and he deserves to be acquitted from the charge of Section 120B of the I.P.C. Accordingly, his conviction and sentence under Sections 115 and 120B of the I.P.C, is hereby set aside and he is acquitted of the charge under Sections 115 and 120B of the I.P.C.

As regards appellant Pappu Choudhary, he stands charged under sections 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation is that in the night of 4th July, 1997 at about 11.30 P.M. while the informant Babi Kumari (PW. 3) was sleeping in the Angan of her house, appellant Pappu Choudhary entered into her house, closed her mouth by putting his hand on her mouth and threatened her that if she raised Hulla, she would be killed. He also told her that he would marry with her and then he took her to a Mango orchard and when she wanted to raise Hulla, the appellant threatened her and promised to marry her, Further case is that on the next day he took her to the Pump house of Bajrangi Yadav, kept her confined there and committed rape on her. He also kept watch on her by sitting outside the pump. Further case is that on 7.7.1997 when appellant Pappu Choudhary was not present outside the pump, the informant managed to escape from the pump house and went to the house of her Mama, Jagdish Yadav and narrated the entire story to him who took her to the house of Deepak Babu and the said Deepak Babu informed the police on telephone. The allegation levelled in the fardbeyan of the informant Babi Kumari finds corroboration from her evidence made before the Court. She has been examined as P.W. 3 in this case and her evidence is as follows:-The occurrence took place about two years ago. In the said night she was sleeping in the Angan of her house which has no boundary. Her mother was sleeping inside the room. In the night appellant Pappu Choudhary came there. He closed her mouth by putting his hand and lifted her on his shoulder and took her to an orchard where he made her to lie down after spreading his Lungi and thereafter he committed rape on her. She wanted to raise Hulla but he threatened to kill her. She has further deposed that after committing rape in the orchard, appellant Pappu Choudhary brought her to Mirchai field where he committed rape on her and thereafter he took her to Pump House where he kept her confined and regularly committed rape on her. She has further deposed that appellant Pappu Choudhary used to keep watch over her by sitting outside the pump house. He used to give threat that if she raised Hulla then she and other members of her family would be killed. She has further deposed that on the next day (Monday) when some female members came for cutting grass she called them and asked them to open the chain of door of the Pump house and then she went to the house of her Mama Jagdish Yadav and narrated the entire story. Her Mama brought her to her house where she narrated the entire occurrence to her mother and brother. Thereafter her Mama brought her to the house of Deepak Singh where she told the entire incident to Deepak Singh, who informed the police and then the police came there and recorded her statement on which she put her signature (Ext. 1). She has further deposed that she had pointed out all the three places of occurrence, namely, orchard, Mirchai field and Pump house to the Police where she was subjected to sexual assault by appellant Pappu Choudhary. She has further deposed that she was produced before the doctor by the police for her medical examination and she was medically examined. She has further deposed that she was produced before the Magistrate where her statement was recorded (statement u/s 164, Cr.PC.) on which she put her signature (Ext. 2).

From the deposition of PW. 3, who is the informant as well as the victim of this case it appears that she has fully supported the prosecution case. Her evidence finds corroboration from the evidence of PW. 1 her mother as well as P.W. 2 Manoj Yadav her brother.

P.W. 1, Paro Devi, in her deposition has deposed that the occurrence took place about two years ago. In the night of occurrence, she was sleeping in the verandah of her house whereas her daughter Babi Kumari was sleeping in the Angan. When in the morning at about 6 A.M. she woke up and she did not find her daughter in the house, she started searching her but she could not be traced out then she went to the house of her brother. She also searched her in the village and in the house of her relations. She has further deposed that after three days her daughter came back and on enquiry she told her that in the night at about 12 appellant Pappu Choudhary had carried her away by bodily lifting her and took her to the orchard where he made her to lie down on the ground after spreading his Lungi and then Pappu Choudhary committed rape on her. She also told her that after committing rape in the orchard, Pappu Choudhary brought her to Mirchai field then again he committed rape on her and then he took her to Boring House where he kept her confined in the Boring house and committed rape on her. She also told her that some female, who came there for cutting grass opened chain of the door of the Boring house and then her daughter came out of the Boring house and went to the house of her Mama Jagdish Yadav. He brought her daughter to her house and then her daughter was taken to the house of Deepak Babu, who informed the police. Similar statement has been given by P.W. 2 at paragraphs 1 and 2 of his deposition. He too deposed that his sister Babi Kumari told her that appellant Pappu Choudhary forcibly kidnapped her from the house, took her to Mango orchard and committed rape on her and then brought her to Mirchai field where again he committed rape on her and thereafter he took her to Boring house where she was confined there and on that place also appellant Pappu Choudhary committed rape on her. Thus, the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 shows that although they are hearsay witnesses but they have fully corroborated the evidence of P.W. 3 regarding the occurrence of kidnapping and rape.

P.W. 4 Jairam Singh is the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, who has conducted the investigation of this case. He has corroborated the evidence of the victim girl and has deposed that on pointing out by the informant Babi Kumari, he has inspected the place of occurrence. According to him, the first place of occurrence is the Angan, the second P.O. is the Mango Orchard and the third P.O. is the Boring house of one Bajrangi Yadav.

The submission of the learned Advocate of appellant Pappu Choudhary is that the alleged story of forcible kidnapping of Babi Kumari from her house is not believable, in view of the statement of P.W. 2 at paragraph 6 and P.W. 3 the victim at paragraph 12. He submitted that in the abovementioned paragraphs both the witnesses have admitted that in the night of occurrence the victim had gone to the house of Faijo Mandal to see picture on TV. He submitted that the above statement of the informant as well as P.W. 2 establishes that in the alleged night of occurrence the victim was not sleeping in her house rather she had gone to the house of one Faijo Mandal to see picture on TV. but I cannot agree with the argument of the learned defence counsel as P.W. 3 has deposed that while she was viewing the cinema the electric line was disconnected and then she alongwith her brother came back to her house. P.W. 2 has also corroborated above fact by saying that in the night her sister had returned back to her house and so it cannot be held that in the night of occurrence she was not at her house.

It was further argued that the story that appellant Pappu Choudhary forcibly carried away the victim on his shoulder and at the same time, he was putting his hand on her mouth cannot be believed as the same is not possible and if it is disbelieved then natural inference will be that the victim accompanied the appellant Pappu Choudhary with her free will and that is why she did not raise any Hulla. He submitted that this circumstance shows that the victim was a consenting party and she with her free will went with appellant Pappu Choudhary and as such, no case u/s 366A of the Indian Penal Code is made out against appellant Pappu Choudhary. But I am of the view that this argument is of no help to the defence as it is settled law that if a minor girl under 18 years of age is enticed away even with her consent the accused cannot escape from the punishment as provided u/s 366A of the I.P.C. In this regard it would be relevant to quote Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code which is as follows:-

"Whoever, by any means whatsoever, induces any minor girl under the age of eighteen years to go from any place or to do any act with intent that such girl may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

The evidence on record shows that at the time of occurrence, the victim was definitely a minor girl which finds corroboration from the expert evidence i.e. evidence of P.W. 9 Dr. Binod Kumar Choudhary who has categorically deposed that the victim was below 16 years of age at the time of her medical examination. Her report is Ext. 3 which also confirms the evidence of P.W. 9. Thus, from the evidence available on record it is established beyond doubt that at the time of alleged occurrence, the victim (P.W. 3) was definitely a minor below 16 years of age and so even if it is presumed for the argument sake (although evidence is otherwise) that she had left her house in the company of appellant Pappu Choudhary with her free will and consent, the appellant Pappu Choudhary cannot escape from the punishment of Section 366A of the I.P.C, and as such, I hold that appellant Pappu Choudhary has been rightly convicted u/s 366A of the I.P.C.

As regards the offence of rape, it was again argued by the learned defence counsel that evidence on record shows that at three different places, the victim was raped by appellant Pappu Choudhary but there is no evidence that the victim tried to raise Hulla which goes to show that the victim was a consenting party and so appellant Pappu Choudhary cannot be convicted u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code. I once again say that this argument is of no help to the defence counsel as it has come on record that the victim was below 16 years of age at the time of commission of alleged offence of rape. The law says that if the rape is committed on a minor girl under the age of 16 years even with her consent, the accused cannot escape from the punishment of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

It has further been argued that in this case all the independent witnesses i.e. P.W. 5 Jagdish Yadav, P.W. 6 Patto Yadav, P.W. 7 Deepak Kumar Singh and P.W. 8 Munna Yadav have become hostile and they have not supported the prosecution case. The learned Advocate of appellant Pappu Choudhary has further argued that in view of the fact that the independent witnesses have not corroborated the alleged story of kidnapping and rape, as such, the learned trial court should have disbelieved the entire prosecution case and should have acquitted appellant Pappu Choudhary of the charge under Sections 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

On the other hand, the argument of the learned State Counsel was that in the case of kidnapping and rape, the conviction can be based upon the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix. He submitted that the evidence on record shows that the victim girl was unmarried at the time of occurrence but when she was examined by the doctor on the allegation that her chastity was ravished by appellant Pappu Choudhary, the doctor on examination of her private part found her hymen ruptured which establishes beyond doubt that the victim was sexually assaulted. Had she been a married girl, there would have been a chance of false implication but since the victim was an unmarried girl, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the victim girl. Hence I fully agree with the submission of the learned State Counsel and hold that there is no reasonable ground to disbelieve the evidence of P.W. 3 that she was raped by appellant Pappu Choudhary specially when P.W. 9 Dr. Binod Kumar Choudhary had found her hymen ruptured.

It has also been submitted on behalf of the learned Advocate of appellant Pappu Choudhary that D.W. 1 Hero Yadav has deposed that appellant Pappu Choudhary has been falsely implicated by the informant due to land dispute and since the independent witnesses have not corroborated the evidence of P.W. 3 on the point of alleged occurrence, as such the trial court should have believed the evidence of D.W. 1 and should have acquitted the appellant Pappu Choudhary. I am not satisfied from the argument of the learned advocate of the appellant as not a single chit of paper has been brought on record by the defence that there was a land dispute between the informant and appellant Pappu Choudhary and so, I discard the argument advanced in this regard on behalf of appellant Pappu Choudhary.

On the basis of the discussions made above, I find and hold that the prosecution has also succeeded in proving the charge of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code against appellant Pappu Choudhary. Accordingly, I hold that there is no need of any interference in the judgment and order of conviction whereby appellant Pappu Choudhary has been convicted u/s 366A and 376 of the I.P.C. and as such the order of conviction passed against appellant Pappu Choudhary under Sections 366A and 376 of the I.P.C. is confirmed and upheld.

It has been submitted on behalf of appellant Pappu Choudhary that the evidence on record shows that the victim was a consenting party and as such, the quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant i.e. rigorous imprisonment for ten years in each section is very harsh and ends of justice will be served by awarding him sentence to the period already undergone as under-trial prisoner but it is difficult to agree with the submission of the learned defence counsel in view of the fact that at the time of occurrence, the victim was a minor girl and she was raped by appellant Pappu Choudhary by putting her under threat and fear and so, I hold that the sentence passed against appellant Pappu Choudhary is not very harsh and there is no need of reduction or modification in the sentence. Accordingly, the order whereby the learned trial court has sentenced appellant Pappu Choudhary to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years each under Sections 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby confirmed. In the result, Criminal Appeal No. 165 of 2003 filed by appellant Julmi alias Julmi Harijan alias Bhutki is hereby allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against him under Sections 115 and 120B of the I.P.C. is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge of Section 115 and 120B of the I.P.C. He is on bail as such he is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds. It is further ordered that Criminal Appeal No. 169 of 2003 filed by appellant Pappu Choudhary is hereby dismissed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against him under Sections 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code are hereby confirmed. Accordingly, both the appeals stand disposed off.