High Court
Case Details
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 538 of 2003 --- Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.03.2003 passed by Shri Bhola Prasad, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-IV, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 328 of 2000. Binod Chaudhary The State of Jharkhand --- --- Versus --- --- --- --- --- Appellant --- Respondent
Legal Reasoning
For the Appellants: Mrs. Bakshi Vibha, Amicus Curiae For the Resp.-State: Mr. Naveen Kr. Ganjhu, A.P.P --- PRESENT Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath --- By court: Heard the parties. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.03.2003, passed by Shri Bhola Prasad, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-IV, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 328 of 2000 arising out of Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 509 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. No. 2553 of 2000, holding the appellant Binod Chaudhary guilty for the offences under sections 376 and 363 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby sentencing him to undergo R.I for seven years for the offence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I for three years for the offence under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the written report of the prosecutrix, alleging therein that on 08.08.2000, she was going to her school. On the way, appellant enticed her and took her to Naresh Hotel and raped her. Appellant threatened her not to reveal the matter to anybody. It is further alleged that on 28.08.2000, appellant again took her to the house of his sister where he kept her for two days and thereafter, left her at Dhanbad Station and fled away. 3. Charge was framed against the appellant under sections 376 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code on 06.02.2001. Contents of the charge was read over and explained to the appellant in Hindi, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. Defence has also adduced love letters written by the prosecutrix to the appellant which were marked ‘X’ series for identification. On the basis of the materials available on the record, learned Trial Court held the appellants guilty and sentenced him accordingly. 2 5. From perusal of the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it appears that victim has been examined as P.W-6. She has identified the written report, which has been marked Ext.-2. She has stated that on 08.08.2000 when she was going to her school, the appellant Binod Chaudhary met her in the way. He took her to Naresh Hotel and raped her. She has further stated that the appellant Binod Chaudhary told her if she will reveal the matter to anyone, her parents and family members will be murdered. She has further stated that on 28.08.2000, appellant again intercepted her and took her to his sister’s house and kept her for two days. Thereafter, he brought her to Dhanbad and left her. She has identified the appellant in the dock. She has been cross-examined at length. She has stated that while she was taken to the house of the sister of the appellant, she did not raise alarm. She has further stated that she cannot state about the location of Naresh Hotel. She also cannot state the layout of Naresh Hotel. She has denied of having written love letters to the appellant. In support of it’s case, prosecution has examined altogether either witnesses. Raj Kumar Rai (P.W-1) is the father of the victim. Parvesh Kumar Rai (P.W-2) is the brother of the victim. Kulmat Devi (P.W-4) is the mother of the victim. All these witnesses have supported the fact that the victim told her that the appellant has raped her. Sanjay Kumar Sao (P.W-3) has stated that on 08.08.2000, the appellant had taken the victim to Naresh Hotel where he got her baby aborted. Dr. Laxmi Pandey (P.W-8) has medically examined the victim. She has proved the medical report, which is Ext.4. According to the doctor, no sign of rape was found. She has also been cross-examined at length. In her cross-examination, she has stated that hymen was old ruptured which may be two to three years old. 6. Sharda Ranjan Prasad Singh (P.W-7) is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has admitted that he has neither gone to Naresh Hotel, nor has recorded the statement of the Manager of the hotel. He has also stated that he had not examined any witness who reside near Awaaj Press. 7. Mrs. Bibha Bakshi, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing on behalf of the appellant, has submitted that the there is delay of twenty-three days in lodging of the FIR and the delay has not been properly explained. It was further submitted that oral account of the victim regarding the fact that she was sexually assaulted, is not corroborated by the medical evidence. 3 8. Mr. Naveen Kumar Ganjhum, learned A.P.P has submitted that the victim has categorically stated that the appellant has raped her and there is nothing in her cross- examination to disbelieve her. 9. Victim has categorically stated that on 08.08.2000, appellant had taken her to Naresh Hotel and raped her. However, the Investigating Officer (P.W-7) has not gone to Naresh Hotel to examine the Manager of the hotel, whether victim and appellant had gone to the hotel on 08.08.2000. It further appears that on 28.08.2000, victim was taken to the house of the sister of the appellant by bus where she was kept for two days. There was ample opportunity for the victim to raise alarm if she was taken against her wish. Delay in lodging of the FIR has also not been properly explained. Furthermore, medical report (Ext.-4) does not support the factum of rape upon the victim. It also appears that the place of occurrence is Naresh Hotel which has not been proved by the Investigation Officer. 10. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the appellant for the offences under sections 376 and 363 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt. 11. This appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is set aside. Appellant is on bail. He and his bailors are discharged from the liability towards the bail bonds.
Decision
Pending I.A., if any stands disposed of. 12. Before parting, I would like to record my appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae during the course of hearing of this criminal appeal. Accordingly, Member Secretary, JHALSA is directed to pay Rs. 7,000/- to Mrs. Bakshi Vibha, by way of remuneration, for her assistance rendered as an Amicus Curiae in this case. Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 30th April 2024 Ranjeet/ (Ambuj Nath, J)