Pappu Yadav vs The State of Jharkhand

R.K. Merathia

By Court: This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 09.10.2001 and order of sentence dated 10.10.2001 passed by the

learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chatra in Sessions Trial No. 65 of 2000 convicting the appellant under sections 376 and 448 IPC and

sentencing him to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default in payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for one

year for the charge u/s 376 IPC and one year imprisonment for the charge, u/s 448 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

The prosecution case in short is that in the forenoon of 22.6.1999 when the victim girl (PW2) was alone in the house and was washing clothes in

the bathroom, the appellant, who was her neighbour, entered into her house and committed rape on her. She could not raise alarm as the appellant

had closed her mouth. After committing rape, the appellant fled away. On the alarm of the prosecutrix, her neighbours including PW5 came.

Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the judgement of conviction on various grounds and submitted that the doctor has found the age of

the victim girl to be about 18 years and opined that definite opinion about the rape cannot be given and that the F.S.L. Report (Ext.-9-C)

produced to show stains of semen on the clothes of the victim girl, was not proved properly and though the appellant was arrested on the same

day, but he was not medically examined. He lastly submitted that in any event, the appellant has remained in jail for about five years and seven

months out of the sentence of ten years and therefore, at least, the sentence may be reduced to the period undergone and the appellant is ready to

deposit the fine amount imposed by the trial court.

On the other hand, Mt Swapan Mazi, learned counsel for the State, supported the impugned judgment.

After hearing the parties and going through the materials brought on record, it appears that the prosecution has fully proved the case of rape.

There is no reason to disbelieve the version of the victim girl (PW2). Other prosecution witnesses have also supported the prosecution case. It is

true that the doctor examined her within seven hours from time of occurrence, but he did not find any injury or spermatozoa and therefore opined

that the definite opinion about the rape cannot be given and that the age of the victim girl was about 18 years. But it appears that the semen was

found on ''Salwar'' and'' ''Underwear'' which were marked as Exts.-A & B and the report of the F.S.L. (Ext.-9-C) has been duly proved.

In the circumstances, no grounds are made out for interference with the conviction of the appellant. So far as the sentence is concerned, it is

submitted that the appellant has remained in jail for five years and seven months and the marriage of the victim girl was solemnized after about a

year of the alleged occurrence and that the appellant was a young boy aged about 20 years at the time of the alleged occurrence and that the

appellant is ready to deposit the fine amount.

In that view of the matter, sentence is modified to the period already undergone. However, the appellant must deposit the fine amount of Rs.

2,000/- imposed by the learned trial court within six weeks from today and if he deposits the amount of fine, he will be discharged from the liability

of his bail bonds. In the event, he fails to deposit the fine amount, he will undergo imprisonment for one year.

With this modification in the sentence, this appeal is dismissed.