Salim Jamuda … v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1039 of 2007 Salim Jamuda …… Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ……. Respondent ----- Present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Appellant : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, APP …… JUDGMENT 09/07.02.2024 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the judgment of conviction dated 21.07.2007 and sentence dated 28.07.2007 passed by Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-V, Chaibasa in connection with S. T. No. 49 of 2006 [S.T.R. No. 17 of 2006] arising out of Goikera P. S. Case No. 06 of 2005 corresponding to G. R. No. 29 of 2005 whereby the appellant- Salim Jamuda has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 363 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of two (2) years for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and has also been sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of two (2) years for the offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant namely Prem Nath Lahri had submitted written application before the Officer In-charge Goilkera P. S. West Singhbhum on 23.01.2005 stating therein that while the daughter of the informant Ragni Lahri aged about 8 years, was returning from the shop of Ram Nath Prasad after purchasing mustard oil on 2 23.01.2005 Sunday at about 7.30 P.M., then in the way Salim Jamuda i.e. the appellant came from the back side of Prem Singh Gagrai house and caught hold of her up and then took her towards bushes under the Mahua tree. He tried to commit rape upon her after closing her mouth. However on the alarm raised by the victim was heard by his brother Chandan Lahri, when he went towards bushes then he found Salim Jamuda running away. The girl was under shock and weeping. Chandan Lahri brought the victim girl to home where she told that Salim has made her to lie and also closed her mouth. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and leaned counsel for the State. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the learned Court below has failed to consider the facts and circumstances which were also in favour of the appellant. It is submitted that the learned Court below in view of the materials available on record, ought to have held that the prosecution has failed to prove the various charges levelled against the appellant. It is submitted that the imposition of substantive sentence of two years under Section 354 of the IPC and R. I. for two years under Section 363 IPC is excessive and disproportionate and arbitrary as the appellant is a poor person. It is submitted that the learned Court below has failed to examine the appellant properly under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. It is submitted that the learned Court below has failed to take into consideration the fact that the testimony of P.W.-2, Shoba Devi and P.W.-4, Chandan Kumar Lahri were not reliable because they were interested witnesses and their statements were contradictory. It is submitted that the learned Court below has failed to take into consideration 3 the fact that the P.W.-8, Sugarh Kandolna, P.W.-11, Ram Nath Prasad and P.W.-12, Md. Shakeel Ansari had been declared hostile. It is submitted that the learned Court below has failed to take into consideration that no injury on the body of the girl was found. It is submitted that the learned Court below has failed to take into consideration that most of the prosecution witnesses were hearsay witnesses and hence, their evidence cannot be relied upon and as such, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence may be set aside and the appellant may be acquitted for the offences under Sections 354 and 363 of the Indian Penal Code and this Criminal Appeal may be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no inference is required from this
Facts
Court. It is submitted that the appellant is named in the FIR for trying to commit rape upon the victim girl. It is submitted that the victim girl was aged about 9 years and she was examined as P.W.-3 and she had fully supported her case. It is submitted that on alarm raised by the victim girl, nearby people had assembled and P.W.-4, Chandan Kumar Lahri, P.W.-5, Aseem Hansda and P.W.-10, Niranjan Bara had fully supported the prosecution case. It is submitted that P.W.-5, Aseem Hansda, P.W.-6, prem Singh Gagrai, P.W.-7, Mukut Hembrom, P.W.-9, Jaswa Hansda, P.W.-11,
Legal Reasoning
both the sides and he presumed that there is no dispute. However, he had not enquired from the accused, but he had enquired from the family members of the victim girl-X and from the statement of their neighbors. 43. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.-13, Sudhir Chandra Choudhary, it would appear that he is the main I.O. of this case and he had submitted charge sheet for the offence under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and the case was reopened by the order of learned SDJM, Porahut and also on the order of Superintendent of Police and he had found that the evidence of taking away the victim girl by the accused- appellant. He clarified further that although further investigation was reopened on the point of land dispute between both the sides and after taking the statements of several persons, he came to the conclusion that there is no land dispute, but the occurrence of attempt to commit rape had taken place for which he had submitted 20 charge sheet. Thus, P.W.-13, Sudhir Chandra Choudhary has fully supported the prosecution case as narrated by the informant P.W.-1, Prem Nath Lahri, P.W.-2, Shoba Devi, P.W.-3 i.e. victim girl-X and P.W.-4, Chandan Kumar Lahri i.e. the son of the informant. 44. P.W.-14 is Francis Topno, Officer In-charge, Goilkera, i.e. the 2nd I.O. and who had proved his signature on the endorsement of registration of the case, which has earlier been marked as Ext.- 1/1. Thereafter he had handed over the investigation of this case to ASI, Niranjan Bara i.e. P.W.-10. Thus he took over the investigation of this case on 21.03.2005 and has submitted charge sheet on 27.03.2005. 45. During his cross-examination, he has stated that he had done nothing during investigation except submitting charge sheet. Whatever evidence was collected, he had not seen before submitting charge sheet and the charge sheet was submitted for the same Section in which FIR was lodged. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.-14, Francis Topno, it would appear that although he has done perfunctory investigation, but he had also charge sheeted on 27.03.2005 under Sections 376 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code in which the FIR was lodged and it is evident that FIR was lodged under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. Thus, P.W.-14, Francis Topno has fully supported the prosecution case on the point of submitting charge sheet. 46. P.W.-15 is Sri Nath Lahri, who is a hearsay witness and stated that occurrence took place on 25.01.2006 and it appears to be wrongly recorded by the PO and he was sitting in his house at 7.30 P.M. in the evening. Then he learnt from his brother Prem Nath Lahri i.e. P.W.-1 that his daughter victim girl-X had gone to shop for purchasing the oil and while he was returning, then the 21 appellant –Salim Jamuda took her near the bushes and hence alarm was raised. During cross-examination, he has stated that he is hearsay witness and not seen the occurrence. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.-15, Sri Nath Lahri it is evident that the P.W.-15 is a hearsay witness and has not supported the prosecution case and as such, his evidence is not reliable, but he has supported the prosecution case to the extent that daughter of the informant was taken away by the victim girl-X near the bushes. 47. It has been held in the case of Mrinal Das and Others Versus State of Tripura reported in (2011) 9 SCC 479 at para-67 as follows:- “Para-67:-It is settled law that corroborated part of evidence of hostile witness regarding commission of offence is admissible. The fact that the witness was declared hostile at the instance of the Public Prosecutor and he was allowed to cross-examine the witness furnishes no justification for rejecting en bloc the evidence of the witness. However, the Court has to be very careful, as prima facie, a witness who makes different statements at different times, has no regard for the truth. His evidence has to be read and considered as a whole with a view to find out whether any weight should be attached to it. The Court should be slow to act on the testimony of such a witness, normally, it should look for corroboration with other witnesses. Merely because a witness deviates from his statement made in the FIR, his evidence cannot be held to be totally unreliable. To make it clear that evidence of hostile witness can be relied upon at least up to the extent, he supported the case of prosecution. The evidence of a person does not become effaced from the record merely because he has turned hostile and his deposition must be examined more cautiously to find out as to what extent he has supported the case of the prosecution.” 48. It is well settled that evidence of hostile witness is reliable 22 to the extent to which he has supported the prosecution case. 49. It is evident from the scrutinizing the evidence that P.W.-1, Prem Nath Lahri is the informant of this case and who has fully supported the prosecution case and his evidence is corroborated by P.W.-2, Shoba Devi, i.e. the wife of the informant and who is a natural witness arrived at the place of occurrence for having seen the appellant fleeing away and P.W.-4, Chandan Kumar Lahri i.e. the son of the informant, who is the eye witness of the occurrence for and his evidence is corroborated from the evidence of victim girl-X, who had suffered and had been taken away by the appellant behind the bushes for committing rape upon her. 50. It is evident that P.W.-10, Niranjan Bara has done part investigation and had found the allegation true. It is further evident that P.W.-13, Sudhir Chandra Choudhary, who is the main I.O. of this case and P.W.-14, Francis Topno, Officer In-charge i.e. 2nd I.O., have fully supported the prosecution case and had submitted charge sheet against the appellant- Salim Jamuda. However, the learned Court below had convicted the appellant under Sections 354 and 363 of the Indian Penal Code instead of under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code without altering the charges. 51. This is a case of attempt to commit rape upon the victim girl and the evidence of the victim girl is fully corroborated from the evidence of P.W.-1, Prem Nath Lahri i.e. father, P.W.-2, Shoba Devi, mother, and P.W.-4, Chandan Kumar Lahri, brother, however, the learned Court had held him guilty for the offences under Sections 354 and 363 of the Cr. P. C. 52. This Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code as the victim girl was recovered instantly and hence, in view of the above fact, the 23 conviction of the appellant –Salim Jamuda for the charge for committing the offences punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside. However, this Court finds that no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below by convicting the appellant –Salim Jamuda for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R. I. for a period of two (2) years for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and hence the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is affirmed. 52. Considering the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the judgment of conviction dated 21.07.2007 and order of sentence dated 28.07.2007 passed by Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-V, Chaibasa in connection with S. T. No. 49 of 2006 [S.T.R. No. 17 of 2006] arising out of Goikera P. S. Case No. 06 of 2005 corresponding to G. R. No. 29 of 2005 whereby the appellant- Salim Jamuda has been convicted for the charges for committing the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 363 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of two (2) years for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of two (2) years for the offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code is modified to the extent that the conviction of the appellant –Salim Jamuda for the charge for committing the offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside and the conviction of the appellant –Salim Jamuda for the charge for committing the offences punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of two (2) years is upheld. 53. The appellant - Salim Jamuda is directed to surrender in 24 the learned Court below forthwith to serve the remaining sentence. The period during which, the appellant remained in jail, shall be set- off from the period of sentence. 54. With the above observations and directions, this Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1039 of 2007 is allowed in part. Kamlesh/N.A.F.R. (Sanjay Prasad, J)
Arguments
Ram Nath Prasad and P.W.-15, Sri Nath Lahri have also supported the prosecution case and submitted that they learnt about the occurrence from the family members of the victim girl and corroborated the prosecution case. It is submitted that P.W.-10, Niranjan Bara is the I.O. of this case, who has supported and corroborated the prosecution case and submitted charge sheet against the appellant for the offence under Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned Court below has rightly 4 convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 354 and 363 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that thus, there is no illegality in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Court below by convicting the appellant and as such, this Criminal Appeal may be dismissed. 6. Perused the Lower Court Records and considered the submissions of both the sides. 7. It transpires from the Lower Court Records that P.W.-1, Prem Nath Lahri i.e. the Informant, who is father of the victim girl aged around eight years, had lodged the FIR 23.01.2005 against the appellant for taking his minor daughter aged about eight years towards the lonely bushes for trying to commit rape upon her and on alarm raised by the victim girl, her brother i.e. the Chandan Kumar Lahri examined as P.W.-4 went near the bushes and saw the appellant fleeing away and her daughter was weeping in fear. Later on his daughter disclosed that the appellant-Salim Jamuda thrashed on the ground and had closed her mouth. 8. On the basis of fardbeyan of Prem Nath Lahri i.e. the informant, the police instituted Goikera P. S. Case No. 06 of 2005 on 23.01.2005 for the offence under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code against the Appellant. 9. The police, after investigation, submitted charge sheet under Sections 376 read with 511 of the Indian Penal Code on 28.03.2005 before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Porahat and learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Porahat had taken cognizance against the appellant under Sections 376 read with 511 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. It transpires that although the first charge sheet was submitted on 28.03.2005 against the appellant under Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. However, the case was again reopened by the learned 5 SDJM, Porahat at the instance of the police and supplementary charge sheet was submitted on 18.10.2005 by the I.O. i.e. P.W.-10, namely Niranjan Bara under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code. Apart from this witnesses named in the first charge sheet and other witnesses namely Jaswa Hansda, P.W.-9, Ram Nath Prasad, P.W.-11, Md. Shakeel Ansari, P.W.-12 were examined and Sudhir Chandra Choudhary, P.W.-13 i.e. I.O. was also examined. 12. After supplying the police paper, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and charges were framed against the appellant- Salim Jamuda on 16.05.2006 for the offence under Sections 376 read with 511 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-V, Chaibasa to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 13. It transpires that during trial the prosecution has got examined fifteen (15) witnesses, who are as follows: (i) P.W.-1, Prem Nath Lahri (i.e. the Informant) (ii) (iii) P.W.-3, is the victim girl (name not disclosed) P.W.-2, Shoba Devi (iv) P.W.-4, Chandan Kumar Lahri (v) P.W.-5, Aseem Hansda (vi) P.W.-6, Prem Singh Gagrai (vii) P.W.-7, Mukut Hembrom (viii) P.W.-8, Sugarh Kandolna (ix) P.W.-9, Jaswa Hansda (x) P.W.-10, Niranjan Bara i.e. 1st I.O. (xi) P.W.-11, Ram Nath Prasad (xii) P.W.-12, Md. Shakeel Ansari (xiii) P.W.-13, Sudhir Chandra Choudhary, i.e. 2nd I.O. (xiv) P.W.-14, Francis Topno and (xv) P.W.-15, Sri Nath Lahri 14. The prosecution has got exhibited following 6 documents, which are as follows:- (i) Ext.-1 is the signature of Premnath Lahri on the written application. (ii) Ext.-1/1 is Endorsement on the written report and (iii) Ext.-1/2 is the signature of F. Topno on the FIR. 15. It transpires that the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. on 27.06.2007 by the learned Court below, and the appellant had denied the circumstances put forth before him. 16. Thereafter the learned Court below has convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 354 and 363 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R. I. for a period of two (2) years for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced him to undergo R. I. for a period of two (2) years for the offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence appreciation of evidence of prosecution witnesses is necessary. 17. P.W.-1, is Prem Nath Lahri and who is the Informant and the father of the victim girl-X and had stated during his evidence that while he was sitting on his shop at Goikera Bazar, then his son Chandan Kumar (i.e. P.W.4) came running to him horrible condition at around 7.30 P.M. and informed that his sister i.e. the victim girl-X had gone to take Mustard oil from the shop of one Ram Nath and while she was returning towards her residence, then the appellant-Salim Jamuda, who was concealed behind the house of Prem Singh Gagrai (i.e. P.W.-6) caught from behind and closed the mouth of her daughter and thrashed her near the Mahua Tree and threatened her to keep quite, but her daughter started raising alarm and then her alarm was heard by her mother and she ran towards the bushes and in the meantime, his son, who was returning after purchasing shoes from the shop, also heard the 7 alarm of her sister and ran towards the bushes and had identified the daughter of the informant. Thereafter the appellant- Salim Jamuda fled away on seeing his wife and son. Thereafter the informant submitted written application before the Officer In- charge at around 08.30 P. M. and his son accompanied him has also put his signature and signature of the witness has been marked as Ext.-1. 18. During his cross-examination, he stated that around 7-8 persons had gone to the police station and written application was written in the police station and they were handed over the paper and pen for writing the contents. He also stated that his house is situated half kilometer from P.S. and the shop of Ram Nath is situated at southern side of his house and the shop of Ram Nath and his shop are in front of each other and it takes five minutes time from his house to reach his shop. However, he has there are houses of several persons between his house and the shop of Ram Nath but he had not gone towards the bushes, but had gone to the police station from the residence and the bushes situated at distance of 50 steps from his house and there is Mahua Tree there. He also stated that there was dark at the time of occurrence and the victim girl –‘X’ has also accompanied him to the police station and the police personnels had recorded the statement of the victim girl-‘X’ on plain paper and she had also written her name on the said paper prepared by the police and he had also put his signature on the said paper and other persons had also put their signature on the said paper and the contents written on the said paper were read by them. However, there was no injury on the body of his daughter and he heard about the occurrence from his son Chandan Lahri i.e. P.W. 4. He identified the appellant-Salim Jamuda, who is from his Muhulla and used to visit his house. 19. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.-1, Prem Nath 8 Lahri, who is the father of the victim girl-X, it is evident that he has supported the prosecution case that the appellant- Salim Jamuda, who is well known and used to visit his house, had tried to molest and tried to commit rape upon his minor daughter aged about eight (8) years by thrashing her on the ground near the Mahua Tree behind the bushes, which is situated at fifty (50) steps from his house. However, the victim girl-X could be saved by his son and his wife as she (i.e. victim girl) has raised alarm and fled away. Thus, P.W.-1, Prem Nath Lahri has fully supported the prosecution case on the point of occurrence and on the point of taking away his daughter by the appellant to commit rape upon her behind the bushes. 20. P.W.-2 is Shoba Devi, who is the mother of the victim girl and stated during her evidence that her daughter had gone to the shop to purchase oil on 23.01.2005, but after half an hour, she started raising alarm, then she thought that some dog had made her to run hence she took a stick and went towards the said place from her northern side, then she saw that she and her son were moving towards the bushes and arrived near the bushes and asked her son and daughter about the incident and her daughter was weeping in fearful condition and she informed that Uncle Salim Jamuda i.e. the appellant picked her in his lap and closed her mouth and thrashed on the ground, then she has raised alarm and there is sign of finger scratching on her mouth and then she brought her daughter to her house. Then she went to the relatives of the appellant –Salim and enquired about Salim. Thereafter, she sent her son to the shop of his father i.e. the informant. She also stated that the occurrence took place near the back portion of her house of Munda and Munda was also present by that time. She has identified the appellant in Court. 9 21. During her cross-examination, she has stated that the said bushes is situated at the distance of 50-60 steps from the western side of her house. It was the month of winter in the evening around 7.30 P.M. and there was no light and it was already dark and she had also gone to the police station along with her husband and her son and some persons of Bazar had also accompanied them and they have informed the police, which was written by the police. However, the police personnel had changed the version later on. She has denied the land dispute with the appellant. She has stated that FIR was written by Dargo Ji, which was signed by her daughter and father of the victim girl-X i.e. the Informant. Although, there was no scratch on the body of her daughter, but there was pain in her body. She has further complained with regard to the act of the police in para- 8 and 9 of her cross-examination by stating that while they were weeping, then the Daroga Ji i.e. the Officer In-charge was laughing and he was making fun of them and he was watching his daughter. She also stated that she was learnt about the occurrence from her daughter and oil has fell down and she had brought blank bottle (shishi) and had shown to the police and she had also shown all the places of Daroga Ji. She has denied the suggestion for falsely implicating the appellant. 22. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.-2, Shoba Devi, it is evident that she has fully supported the case and she is a natural witness, who has just arrived at the place of occurrence after hearing alarm of her daughter i.e. the victim girl as she is living at nearby place and she had seen that her daughter was weeping and her son was also present. She learnt from her daughter that the appellant-Salim had thrashed her on the ground and was trying to commit overt act upon her and thus, PW.-2, Shoba Devi has fully supported the prosecution case. She has also stated the acts of the police, who were laughing on the situation of 10 the family members of the victim girl-X. 23. P.W.-3 is Victim girl-X, aged about eight years. She was examined firstly on the question and answer format by the Presiding Officer i.e. Trial Court concerned by testing her intelligence by asking her name and name of school and class in which she was reading and thereafter she was examined and her evidence was recorded by the PO. During her evidence, the victim had stated that the occurrence took place around 7.30 P.M. on Sunday and on that date she had gone to purchase the oil from the shop of Ram Nath (i.e. P.W.-11) and while she was returning from there she saw the appellant, who was standing behind the house of Prem Singh Gagrai (i.e. P.W.-6) and he lifted her in his lap and tied her mouth and took her behind the bushes of near Mahua Tree and compelled her to sleep there and due to which, oil felled from the Sisi (bottle) and he tied her mouth from one hand and he was opening his pant from another hand and he tried to open her pant also, then she started raising alarm and then his brother, who was coming from that place arrived there and upon arrival of Chandan Lahri, the appellant- Salim Jamura fled away from the backyard of the house of Munda and in the meantime, her mother also arrived there and took her away. She also identified the appellant-Salim in the Court for lifting her after pressing her mouth. 24. During cross-examination, she stated that she had gone to the shop for purchasing the oil, which is situated at some distance and it takes five to ten minutes to go there. Shop of Ram Nath is visible from his shop and situated at 10 steps and there are other shops also between her house and the shop of Ram Nath. She further asserted during para-7 of her cross-examination that while she was returning after taking oil, then accused was standing on the way behind the house of Prem Gagrai (i.e. P.W.-6) and he lifted her 11 from the passage and took her at a distance around 30 feet, which has been recorded by the Court below. She has further stated that the way, from which she was coming, from which it was used by the people, who used to go to the Baazar and at that time, no one was present there. She has further asserted in para-9 of her cross- examination that the appellant has lifted her from the way, then she started raising alarm loudly as “chhoriye chhoriye”. She further stated that the police had enquired about the incident on the same day in the night regarding incident and she had written her name on the paper and Daroga had prepared the paper and she had written her name and she had put her signature on the direction of the Daroga. She has further stated in para-12 that the appellant- Salim was opening his pant and was trying to open her pant, but it could not be opened. She has also stated that the police arrived at her residence twice and thrice and they interrogated her, but had not taken her to anywhere. She also stated that the accused took her to dry land and it was not muddy and she had shown oil to Daroga Ji and oil had fell down in the Bushes also from Shishi. She also stated that house of Prem Gagrai is situated between shop of Ram Nath and her houses. She had denied the suggestion for falsely implicating the appellant. 25. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.-3, Victim girl-X, it is evident that she has fully supported the prosecution case and has submitted that the appellant had closed her mouth and lifted her and took her behind the bushes near the Mahua Tree and she was made to sleep there and the accused-appellant started opening his pant and has tried to open her pant also, but due to alarm raised by her, then her mother came and rescued her. Thus, P.W.-3 i.e. the victim girl has fully supported the prosecution case and the act committed by the appellant and has fully stood the test of cross-examination, although there is some 12 contradiction, but the same is minor in nature hence her evidence is intact on the place of occurrence and her evidence is fully reliable. 26. P.W.-4 is Chandan Kumar Lahri, who is the brother of the victim girl-X and son of the informant and stated during his evidence that occurrence took place on 23.01.2005 at around 7.30 P. M. he had gone to the shop for purchasing the shoe and while he was returning then he heard the sound of her sister near the bushes. Then he had gone to the place of voice and then he saw that the appellant- Salim was running from there and thereafter he went near his sister who she was weeping. He asked her sister to stand up and stated that he learnt from his sister that the appellant had lifted her in his lap and he had threatened her to maintain quite (with objection recorded by the leaned Court below) and thereafter he took his sister to the house and informed the matter in the shop of his father and then they went to the police station. During his cross-examination, he stated that the police station is situated at 200 steps from his house and they had gone to the police station after 8.00 to 8.30 PM and the shop of Ram Nath is situated at Bazar and his house is not visible from the shop of Ram Nath. However, he met his sister from some distance of his house towards the bushes near the Mahua Tree and the house of Harish Munda is near the tree. He further stated that his mother had come to the place of occurrence on the alarm of weeping raised by her sister and the place of occurrence is situated at the distance of around 60-70 ft. from his house. He had also shown the mark of oil fell in the ground to the Daroga Ji, but it was not seized by the Daroga Ji. 27. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.-4, Chandan Kumar Lahri, it is evident that he is the own brother of the victim girl –X and he had gone to the place of occurrence on hearing sound of her sister and he had seen the appellant fleeing away by 13 that time when he arrived there. He returned to his house with her sister from there. Thus, P.W.-4, Chandan Kumar Lahri has also fully supported the prosecution case and has stood the test of cross- examination and hence the evidence of P.W. 4 is fully reliable as he is like an eye witness to have seen the appellant running away from the place of occurrence. 28. P.W.-5 is Aseem Hansda, who stated during his evidence that the occurrence took place on 23.01.2005 on Sunday and on that date, he was in village Goil and he learnt about the occurrence from his villagers on 24.01.2005 and he was in party on the date of occurrence, but the police asked him to produce the appellant. Thereafter he met the appellant- Salim Jamuda after three days and he took the appellant with him to the police station. During his cross-examination, he stated that children, wife and mother live in his house and his children are studying in class- eight and nine. He had not seen the place of occurrence. However, the police has not recorded the statement of his family members or any other person. He also stated that on the date of occurrence, he was not able to meet the appellant- Salim Jamuda, but he had not gone to the house in the village. He also stated that he had not meet the appellant-Salim Jamuda on the date of occurrence. However, the appellant came to him on his asking and the appellant had voluntarily gone to the police station. He had also scolded to the appellant for doing such an act. Thereafter the appellant was arrested by the police. 29. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.-5, Aseem Hansda, it is evident that he is Village Munda and Informant and the family members of informant were living in his house and although he is a hearsay witness and he learnt about the occurrence on 24.01.2005 i.e. after delay of 12 hours or one day, but he had produced the appellant to the police on the direction of the police. 14 Thus, although P.W.-5, Aseem Hansda is hearsay witness, but he has supported the case on the point of production of the appellant before the police station after the occurrence. Hence, the evidence of P.W.-5, Aseem Hansda corroborates the prosecution case. 30. P.W.-6 is Prem Singh Gagrai, who stated during his evidence that the occurrence took place on 23.01.2005 on Sunday at around 8.00 P.M. in the evening and on that date he was in his house. However, on the next day, he learnt about the occurrence from Prem Nath that his daughter was taken away by the appellant- Salim Jamuda (objected by defence). During his cross-examination, he stated that the house of Prem Nath is situated above his house and his house is on the ground portion. He further stated that there was noise on the date of 23 in the neighbor as it was the day of chatiyari and song was being played by several people and he was taking meal. He cannot say about the place of occurrence. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.-6, Prem Singh Gagrai, it is evident that he is a hearsay witness and he learnt about the occurrence from the informant P.W.-1, Prem Nath Lahri. 31. P.W.-7 is Mukut Hembrom, who is a shopkeeper and is also a hearsay witness. He stated that occurrence took place on 23.01.2005 and he learnt from the people that the appellant –Salim Jamuda had taken away the daughter of Prem Nath Lahri towards the bushes and had heard nothing. During his cross-examination, he stated that his house is situated at after the three to four houses of Prem Nath. He learnt about the occurrence after ten days. He has shown ignorance about the dispute with the road between the relative of Prem Nath and the appellant- Salim Jamuda. However, he has stated that there is no good relationship between the appellant and the informant-Prem 15 Nath. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.-7, Mukut Hembrom, it is evident that he is hearsay witness, but he learnt about the occurrence from the villagers that the appellant has taken the daughter of the informant- Prem Nath towards the bushes and has also corroborated the prosecution case. 32. P.W.-8, Sugarh Kandolna has been declared hostile by the prosecution and as such, his evidence is not being discussed. 33. P.W.-9 is Jaswa Hansda, who stated during his evidence that his house is situated besides the house of Prem Nath i.e. P.W.-1 and he knows the daughter of Prem Nath and she is aged about 6-7 years and he had heard that the appellant- Salim Jamuda has taken away the daughter of the informant-Prem Nath towards the bushes while she was returning from shop and he has no knowledge about the land dispute between the appellant-Salim Jamuda and the informant-Prem Nath. During his cross-examination, he has stated that he has no personal knowledge of the occurrence. He flatly denied that he has not aware about the occurrence. However, he has not aware as to whether the appellant- Salim Jamuda has been implicated. 34. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.-9, Jaswa Hansda it is evident that he is hearsay witness and although he has supported the prosecution case to the extent that the appellant- Salim Jamuda had taken the daughter of the informant-Prem Nath towards the bushes, but during cross-examination, he has denied about the such occurrence. Thus, evidence of P.W.-9, Jaswa Hansda is not reliable. 35. P.W.-10 is Niranjan Bara, who is the Sub-Inspector and 1st I.O. of this case. He stated that he had received written application from the informant-Prem Nath on 23.01.2005 at the police station and on the basis of which, he was handed over the investigation of 16 P.S. Case No. 06/05 on 23.01.2005. Thereafter he went to the place of occurrence with the Informant and had inspected the Place of Occurrence and stated that the place of occurrence is the eastern side of his police statin between the Goiyal Kerro Baazar and Christen Toli. There is bushes at the distance of 50 yards from the house of Prem Singh Gagrai. There is vacant land in the bushes and there is Mahua Tree. Then he recorded the statement of the informant on the same day and also recorded the statement of the victim girl-X and P.W.-4, Chandan Kumar Lahri and P.W.-2, Shobha Devi and P.W.-6, Prem Singh Gagrai, Shree Nath Lahri, P.W.-5, Aseem Hansda, P.W.-7, Mukut Hembram respectively and from their statements, he learned that the accused is Salim Jamuda. Thereafter the appellant- Salim Jamuda was arrested on 27.01.2005 and he handed over investigation to the Officer In-charge on 21.03.2005. 36. During his cross-examination, he stated that Prem Nath or someone had brought written application himself or not he cannot be say and he is not aware that as to when written application was submitted in the police station. He could not say that that the time of filing written application, the victim girl-X was present or not. However, he stated that he had met the victim girl-X on 23.01.2005 and again says to meet victim girl-X on 24.01.2005. He further stated that he met the victim girl for the first time in her residence. He had arrived at the place of occurrence on 24.01.2005 at 6.50 A.M. in the morning and has described the place of occurrence and has stated that there is Mahua tree in the northern portion and the house is situated at 50 yards and there is house of Prem Singh Gagrai i.e. P.W.6 in the southern direction and it is Jangal Jhadi in the western side. However, he had not seen any sign on the place of occurrence. He had not done complete investigation of this case. 17 37. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.-10, Niranjan Bara it is evident that he is part I. O. and although investigation of this case was handed over on 21.03.2005 and he has recorded the statement of victim girl-X and he had met the victim girl ‘X’ and had gone to the place of occurrence on 24.01.2005 and found the same place of occurrence as described by P.W.-2, Shoba Devi and P.W.-4, Chandan Kumar Lahri. Thus, even P.W.-10 is the part I. O. of this case, he has supported and corroborated the prosecution case on the point of lodging the FIR by the informant and he has also corroborated and supported the prosecution case. 38. P.W.-11 is Ram Nath Prasad, who is a shopkeeper and has stated that occurrence took place one year ago and he was acquainted with Prem Nath i.e. the Informant, P.W.-1 and his children used to take articles from his shop and one son and one daughter of Prem Nath used to take articles from his shop. However, he does not remember that as to whether daughter of Prem Nath had arrived in his shop for taking articles. However, he heard about the occurrence and he learnt that the police had apprehended the appellant. When he was asked by the police about purchasing of articles by the daughter of the informant, then he stated that sometimes she used to arrive at his shop. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution. Although, P.W.-11 has been declared hostile by the prosecution. However, during cross-examination he has stated that he has not given the statement before the police that on the date of occurrence, daughter of Prem Nath Lahri had arrived at his shop for taking oil. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.-11, Ram Nath Prasad it is evident that although he has been declared hostile by the prosecution, but he has supported the prosecution case to the 18 extent that he learnt about apprehension of some person by the police. 39. It is the case of the prosecution that the victim girl had gone to the shop of Ram Nath for purchasing oil. Thus, even if P.W.-11 has been declared hostile, but his evidence supports and corroborates the prosecution case on the point of occurrence, even if he has been declared hostile by the prosecution. 40. P.W.-12 is Md. Shakeel Ansari, who has been declared hostile by the prosecution. However, he has admitted that Chandan Lahri is the son of the informant-Prem Nath Lahri had purchased the shoe from his shop, but he does not remember the date. As the P.W.-12 has been declared hostile and as such, his evidence is not relevant. 41. P.W.-13, Sudhir Chandra Choudhary, Officer In-charge CKP, who is the 3rd I.O. of this case and had stated that he was posted as Police Inspector in Manohar Circle on 17.07.2005 and he started investigating this case when the permission of learned SDJM, Porahat and even he was directed by the Superintendent of Police. He further stated that during course of investigation, he had recorded the statement of informant-Prem Nath Lahri, his daughter i.e. the victim girl-X and his son Chandan Lahri and neighbor Aseem Hansda i..e P.W. 5 and Jaswa Hansda i.e. P.W. 9 on 09.08.2005. Thereafter, he had recorded the statement of Ram Nath Prasad i.e. P.W. 11 and Md. Shakil Ansari i.e. P.W. 12 and he had received the report from the Superintendent of Police, Chaibasa on 15.10.2005 and as per the direction, he had submitted supplementary charge sheet on 15.10.2005 and he has proved the FIR on 23.01.2005 in the signature of Officer In-charge, Goilkera marked as Ext.-1/1. He has further proved the formal FIR marked as Ext.-1/2. He had submitted charge sheet under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. 19 42. He stated that during the course of investigation, he is not aware that the appellant had removed the clothes of the victim girl. However, he asserted that he had found evidence of taking away the victim girl-X and even the victim girl-X had stated this fact before him. The victim girl was returning after taking oil at the time of occurrence and the oil was purchased from the shop of Ram Nath, but he had not enquired from the shopkeeper. He had not perused the last diary of the initial investigation. He further stated that the case was reopened on the one point as to whether there was prior land dispute between the appellant and the informant and he had investigated on this point and also investigated on the other points. After reopening, he found no land dispute between both the sides and for arriving at this conclusion, he has recorded the statement of witnesses, who had disclosed before him that there is no such land dispute between