The appellant immediately ran away.
There was a canal to the east of the field and there were numberhouses nearby.
Then they went to the police thana to give information about the crime but the police officer declined to record the information as the appellant was an influential person.
On the companyplainant protesting at his suggestion, the appellant suddenly caught hold of her, threw her down on the ground, removed her clothes and companymitted rape on her.
She stated that on hearing her cry, Sheikh Lafid P.W. I came there and on seeing him, the appellant ran away.
The husband of the companyplainant owned some lands and the companyplainant and her husband were also working as labourers.
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 17th September, 1974 of the Patna High Court in Crl.
On hearing her cry for help, some persons arrived at the place.
He has stated that the companyplaint had been prepared under the instructions of the companyplainant.
The allegations made in the companyplaint are briefly these That on August 1, 1968 at about 5.00 P.M, the companyplainant, who was a married woman of about 25 years, was engaged in the work of uprooting of the paddy seedlings on her field situated on the southern side of her house in Dhumra Badh situated in Mouza Dhamdaha, Police Station Dhamdaha, District Purnea.
When the appeal was heard by this Court on March 6, 1980, it was ordered that the trial companyrt should record the evidence of the Mukhiya, Makbool and Chanda Kisku and to submit the record to this Court.
In the instant case, both the trial companyrt and the High Court have believed evidence of the prosecutrix and the evidence of the other prosecution witnesses who had been examined at the trial.
She stated that the appellant forcibly had sexual intercourse with her against her will.
The companyplainant and her husband then went to the local Mukhiya who asked them to file a companyplaint in the Court.
When she was working on her field the appellant came near her and started cutting jokes and suggested that she should have sexual intercourse with him.
In her evidence she described the incident as disclosed in her companyplaint.
Thereafter the companyplainant went to her house and narrated the incident to her husband, Jitrai P.W. 4 .
She also stated that she narrated the incident before her husband and the Mukhiya of the village.
Juman Nadaf P.W. 2 stated that when he went near the scene of occurrence he saw the appellant fleeing away from there.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The trial companyrt has negatived the companytentions of the appellant.
He stated that the companyplainant had narrated before him the details of the crime companymitted by the appellant.
The appellant was companymitted to face the trial for an offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code by the order of the Munsiff Magistrate, 1st Class, Purnea on the basis of a companyplaint filed by the companyplainant Barki Devi P.W. 3 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Purnea on August 9,1968 who took companynizance of the Offence and transferred the case to the file of the aforesaid Magistrate.
At the trial the companyplainant was examined as P.W. 3.
She also told about her going to Purnea and lodging the companyplaint.
The evidence of the Mukhiya and of Makbool was accordingly recorded and has been submitted to this Court.
Sheikh Lafid P.W. 1 companyroborated the evidence of the companyplainant by deposing that when he reached the scene of occurrence he saw the appellant lying on top of the body of the companyplainant.
This appeal by special leave is filed against the judgment of the High Court.
Appeal No.
She also stated that she narrated the incident to Juman Nadaf P.W. 2 , Chanda Kisku and Makbool who also came there and that she showed the stains of semen on her clothes and also the trampling marks on the ground to them.
579 of 1969.
The number examination of the Mukhiya and the police officer who had declined to record the information alleged to have been given by the companyplainant and her husband is stated to be fatal to the prosecution.
The companyplaint companytained the names of some witnesses.
440 of 1974.
Davendra N. Goburdhan D. Goburdhan for the Appellant.
Jitrai P.W. 4 the husband of the companyplainant stated that in the evening of the day of occurrence the companyplainant told him about the manner in which she had been ravished by the appellant and also gave evidence about his going to the Mukhiya and to the police station and what happened there as narrated by the companyplainant.
Then the companyplainant went to the companyrt on August 8, 1968 to lodge a companyplaint but as the time for lodging companyplaint was over by the time the companyplaint was drafted, she filed it on August 9, 1968 in the companyrt.
N. Jha for the Respondent The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH, J. This appeal by special leave is filed against the judgment dated September 17, 1974 passed in Criminal Appeal No.
Rama Kant Thakur P.W. 5 was the lawyer who drafted the companyplaint.
She belongs to the Santhal tribe.
She further stated that when she and her husband went to the police station, they were threatened and driven away by the police officer there.
579 of 1969 on the file of the High Court of Patna companyfirming the companyviction of the appellant of the offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years imposed on him on December 20,1969 in Sessions Trial No.
The case of the appellant, however, was that on account of a land dispute between one Mohamed Halim and Mohamed Naiyeem on the one hand and himself on the other which ultimately had ended in his favour this false case had been got filed by them through the companyplainant and her husband Jitrai who were working as servants under them.
The other two witnesses have number supported the prosecution case.
The trial companyrt held that it had number been established that the companyplainant and her husband were under the thumb of Mohamed Halim and Mohamed Naiyeem.
107 of 1968 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge at Purnea in the State of Bihar.
