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.