A written companyplaint was filed by the prosecutrix PW5 on 16.09.2011 before the local police station against the accused alleging, inter alia, that in the preceding night at about 1100 p.m. she awaken after hearing some sound and whereupon in the light of the mobile phone she found the accused brother of her husband whereupon she made query.
According to the prosecution and as per the prosecutrix, thereafter the accused ran away and after getting an opportunity she raised alarm and the neighbours came there including one Suman Devi, her companysin Gotini as well as Shanti Devi, her companysin mother in law.
Out of the eight witnesses, PW2, PW3 and PW4 did number support the case of the prosecution and therefore were declared hostile.
Thereafter, on appreciation of evidence on record, the learned trial Court held the accused guilty for the offences under Sections 376 1 and 450 of the IPC.
She disclosed the event incident to them.
That the appellant herein original accused was tried by the learned Sessions Court for the offences punishable under Sections 376 1 and 450 of the IPC.
P.C. was recorded.
The case of the accused was of total denial.
Instead of giving any reply, he companymitted the rape upon her.
At the time of incident, her husband was away from the village.
The prosecution also brought on record the FIR, Injury Report and FSL Report.
He recorded the statement of the companycerned witnesses.
Investigation was carried out by the officer in charge of Makhdumpur Police Station.
Thereafter on companyclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the chargesheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376 1 and 450 of the IPC.
FIR was registered against the accused being P.S. Case No.
By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the said appeal.
456 of 2011/90/2012.
Hence, the accused has preferred the present appeal.
2.1 To prove the charge, the prosecution examined in all eight witnesses including the prosecutrix PW5 and Dr. Renu Singh Medical Officer PW7 .
The accused pleaded number guilty and therefore he came to be tried by the learned Sessions Court for the aforesaid offences.
According to the prosecutrix, she informed her mother in law and father in law who were at Gaya.
As the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate companymitted the case to the Sessions Court which was transferred to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ist, Jehanabad, which was numbered as Sessions Trial No.
325/2011.
He also companylected the medical report from Dr. Renu Singh, PW7, who examined the victim.
Thereafter on their arrival she came to the police station along with them and submitted written report.
The clothes apparels of the prosecutrix were seized and were sent to FSL.
2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of companyviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court, the accused preferred an appeal before the High Court.
209 of 2015, by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the original accused and has companyfirmed the judgment and order of companyviction passed by the learned Sessions Court companyvicting the accused for the Signature Not Verified offences punishable under Sections 376 1 and 450 of the IPC, the original Digitally signed by MEENAKSHI KOHLI Date 2020.02.14 163140 IST Reason accused has preferred the present appeal.
R. SHAH, J. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 7.2.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal No.
