Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 1329 of 2006
PETITIONER:
JAMBIR MAHATO
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF WEST BENGAL
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/02/2008
BENCH:
P.P. NAOLEKAR & P. SATHASIVAM
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
O R D E R
1. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 21.2.1999 at about 11 a.m., when
the prosecutrix was returning to her house after working in the brickfield of Mahadeb
Bera, then near Laltanrd jungle, appellant-accused came from behind on a cycle,
molested her, put his napkin (gamchha) inside her mouth and forcibly raped her.
Appellant-accused also threatened her not to disclose the matter to anyone; otherwise
he would kill all her family members. After returning to her house, the prosecutrix
narrated the incident to her sister (P.W.5) who, in turn, narrated it to their mother
(P.W. 2). PW. 2 waited for her husband (PW 4) to return and after informing him,
she went to the police station with the prosecutrix and lodged an F.I.R. against the
appellant-accused.
2. Appellant-accused was charged under Sections 341/376 of Indian Penal Code
(in short \023IPC\024). By the judgment and
order dated 27.3.2003, the Sessions Judge, Purulia found the appellant-accused
guilty and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for ten years for the commission of offence
under Section 376 IPC and for the charge under Section 341 IPC, he was
sentenced to suffer R.I. for six months.
3. Appellant-accused filed an appeal before the High Court challenging his
conviction passed by the Sessions Judge. The High Court, by the impugned
judgment dated 29.11.2005, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the sentence of the
appellant-accused.
4. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the High Court, the appellant-accused
has preferred the present appeal by special leave.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence
on record.
6. The statement of prosecutrix has been corroborated by the F.I.R. lodged by her
in the police station and also by her sister PW 5 Putibala Paramanik to whom the
entire incident was narrated by the prosecutrix immediately.
7. We have minutely gone through the judgment delivered by the Sessions Judge as
well as that of the High Court. We do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the
Sessions Judge and th impugned judgment delivered by the High Court confirming
the sentence of the appellant. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.