Ashutosh Kumar JUDGMENT
Ashutosh Kumar, J.
1. The appellant/Om Prakash Mishra has been convicted under Section 376 I.P.C by judgment dated 12.06.2017 passed in Sessions Trial No. 1542 of 2010, arising out of K. Hat P.S. Case No. 450 of 2005 dated 30.12.2005 by the learned 2nd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Purnea and by order dated 17.06.2017, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer simple imprisonment for one year. The amount of fine realized from the appellant has been directed to be paid to the victim.
2. The appellant was made accused in this case on the basis of the F.I.R lodged by the victim (P.W. 3) which was lodged on 30.12.2005. In the F.I.R, she has alleged that she was being subjected to rape by the informant for about four years on the false assurance of marriage. It was further stated by her that about 2-3 days prior to lodging of the F.I.R, the appellant had married another girl, despite the family members of the appellant as well as of the girl knowing fully well that the prosecutrix was having relationship with the appellant. She has stated that in the four years of relationship with the appellant, she became pregnant twice but was forcibly made to abort. She has stated that she is desirous of getting into matrimonial relationship with the appellant and in case he refuses to do so, the family members of the appellant and the girl with whom he has married, would be held responsible for the consequences. On the basis of the aforesaid written report lodged by P.W. 3, K. Hat P.S. Case No. 450 of 2005 dated 30.12.2005 was instituted for investigation for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C.
3. The police, after investigation submitted charge-sheet under Section 376 I.P.C. However, charges were framed against the appellant under Sections 376 and 417 of the I.P.C.
4. The Trial Court, after examining six witnesses on behalf of the prosecution and three on behalf of the defence, acquitted the appellant under Section 417 I.P.C but convicted him under Section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced him as aforesaid.
5. At the trial, Amit Kumar and Banwari Mehta who have been examined as P.Ws. 1 and 2 have not supported the prosecution version and have been declared hostile.
6. The Investigating Officer of this case has also not been examined because of his death.
7. One Pramila Ramani, who is maternal grand-mother of Puja, with whom the appellant is said to have married, has been examined as P.W. 5. She has only deposed that the father of the victim worked as her Clerk and after the death of the mother of the victim, she had been residing in her house and the appellant as well as his sister always came to her house to meet her. The prosecutrix, on being asked by her about the relationship with the appellant, told her that she is going to marry him. However, she has specifically deposed before the Trial Court that during the period that the victim had been residing in her house, she had never complained against the appellant.
8. Dr. Tripti Sinha, Medical Officer (P.W. 4) who has examined the victim on 30.12.2005 has deposed that the victim had given her history of being in relationship with somebody for the last five years and had sexual intercourse with him. The last sexual encounter, as narrated by the victim, had taken place about 10-12 days prior to lodging of the F.I.R. ........