Cr. Appeal No. 138 of 2000. Case: Ramu Mandal and Ors. Vs State of Bihar (now Jharkhand). Jharkhand High CEGAT & CESTAT High Court
| Case Number | Cr. Appeal No. 138 of 2000 |
| Counsel | For Appellants: Mahabir Pd. Sinha (amicus curiae) and For Opp. Party: APP (Manoj Kumar) |
| Judges | R. R. Prasad, J. |
| Issue | Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) - Section 376 |
| Citation | 2006 CriLJ 4514 |
| Judgement Date | Tuesday June 13, 2006 |
| Court | Jharkhand High CEGAT & CESTAT High Court |
Judgment:
-
All the three appellants were put on trial for charges under Sections 376(G)/120B on the allegation that all the three accused persons committed mass rape upon the prosecutrix, Surti Devi (P.W.4). The learned Judge having found the appellants guilty convicted each of them under Section 376(G)/120B of the Indian Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for 10 years.
-
The case of the prosecution is that the informant, Surti Devi (P.W. 4) on 12-6-1998 came to see her husband to Dumka, who had been lodged at Dumka Jail and as the night broke out she came to Dumka Bus Stand and sat at the passengers shed where at about 11 P.M. the appellant, Ramu Mandal came and asked her to come to hotel for taking rice. Upon which she came to hotel and while she was cleaning utensil the appellant, Ramu Mandal came and took her inside the hotel and committed rape on her. Thereafter two other friends of Ramu Mandal also committed rape on her.
-
According to the prosecutrix she on account of being ashamed with the happening did not inform to the police but when her husband insisted on to lodge the case she did lodge the case.
-
The informant (P.W.4) gave her fardbeyan (Ext.-2) on 25-7-98 at 8.30 A.M. On the basis of the said fardbeyan the first information report was lodged and the matter was taken up for investigation.
-
During investigation complicity of other two appellants, namely, Makchan Mahto and Kartik Dutta transpired as the persons, who also committed rape upon the informant. In course of investigation, the police also send the informant before Dr. Mridula Vibhakar (P.W.3) for her examination, who did examine the informant on 27-7-98, but did not find any sign of rape. However, she noticed that there is a old rupture of hymen. Accordingly, she issued the report, which has been marked as Ext.1.
-
After completion of the investigation, the police submitted chargesheet. Upon which the cognizance of the offence was taken and in due course when the case was committed to the Court of Sessions the charges were framed, to which the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In course of trial the prosecutrix, Surti Devi was examined as P.W. 4, who in her evidence, testified that in the night of the occurrence she was taken to hotel by Ramu Mandal where he committed rape on her and she also named the other two appellants i.e. Makchan Mahto and Kartik Dutta, as the persons who also committed rape on her. She has...
To continue reading
Request your trial