The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 375 of 2001 ------ (Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14.8.2001 (sentence passed on 17.8.2001) passed by Sri Satyendra Kumar Gupta, the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in S.T. No. 23/99. Anand Mahto The State of Jharkhand … … Appellant Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Appellant : Mr. M.B. Lal, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Special P.P. Versus ------ ------ ------
Legal Reasoning
R. Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Mr. M.B. Lal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned Special P.P. for the State. 2. and sentence dated 14.8.2001 (sentence passed on 17.8.2001) passed by This appeal is directed against the judgement and order of conviction Sri Satyendra Kumar Gupta, the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in S.T. No. 23/99, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 376 (1) IPC and has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default in payment of fine, he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 3. recorded on 27.7.98 wherein it has been stated that on 25.7.98 she was The prosecution case arises out of the Fardbeyan of Kenduli Manjhian returning home after having a bath at the village pond and at 2.P.M. she opened the door and went inside and was preparing to feed her four year old brother in law. When she was going to close the door, somebody from the back caught hold of her breasts. It has been alleged that she turned back and identified the said person to be Anand Mahato (appellant) who felled her in the verandah and by issuing threats to her committed rape upon her. In the evening, when her brother in law-Sonaram Manjhi came, she had disclosed the incident to him at which he advised her to wait till her husband returns. On 26.7.98, when her husband returned home along with her mother in law they were apprised of the incident and her husband in turn informed the villagers and called a Panchayat but Anand Mahato did not attend the Panchayat and Anand Mahato and his brother-Panchu Mahto threatened them of assault. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Govindpur ( Barwadda) P.S. Case No. 159/98 was instituted against Anand Mahato for the offence punishable under section 376 IPC. On completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted under section 376 IPC against Anand Mahato and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as S.T. No. 23/99. Charge was framed against the accused under section 376 (1) IPC which was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. of its case. The prosecution has examined as many as five witnesses in support P.W-1-Bemni Manjhian is the mother in law of the prosecutrix who has stated that the incident is of ten months back. She had gone to her parents place along with her son and when she returned back her daughter in law Kenduli Manjhian had disclosed that on Saturday in between 12-1 P.M. Anand Mahato had entered in the house as soon as she returned from the river after having a bath and after catching her from the back he had committed rape upon her. She had informed the villagers and thereafter filed a case in the police station. She has stated that her daughter in law had instituted the case. In cross-examination, she has deposed that the police had recorded her statement. In the police station, she had given her thumb impression over a piece of paper. She has two sons; Narayan Manjhi and Sonaram Manjhi. On the date of occurrence, Sonaram Manjhi was not in the house while Narayan Manjhi was with her. Her daughter in law was alone in the house. P.W-2-Sonaram Hansda has stated that the incident is of a year back on a Saturday and he had gone for his work in a Malaysian Company. When he returned home at 5 P.M. he saw his sister in law crying and on query she disclosed that when she had returned home after having a bath in the river, Anand Mahato had entered into the house and had committed rape upon her. His elder brother and mother had gone to his maternal uncle’s place and on their return the matter was disclosed to them but when they went to the house of Anand Mahato they were subjected to assault by Anand Mahato and his brother Panchu Mahto. A Panchayti was held in the village after which the case was instituted in the police station. In cross-examination, he has deposed that after he came to know about the incident of rape from his sister in law he did not disclose about the Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 375 of 2001 2 same to anyone. He has stated before the police that his sister in law was assaulted by Anand Mahato. There were no injuries on the body of his sister in law. He has deposed that no documents were prepared in the Panchayat. He has a younger brother aged about four years. P.W-3-Dr. Laxmi Pandey had examined Kenduli Manjhian on 27.7.98 and had found the following:- “ External injury-Nothing abnormal detected. Internal injury-Old hymen ruptured. Uterus antiviried. Normal size. Mobile, Forniches clear. According the Pathologist spermatozoa not found in the vaginal swab. According to Radiologist film no. 889 showed epiphysis is of the lower end radies and ulna was fused. Epiphysis of radial head and olencranon was fused. Epiphysis of iliac crest was fused. But fusing line was visible”. to She has proved the reports prepared by her which have been marked as Ext-1 and 1/1. P.W-4-Rajendra Mahato has proved his signature on the fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext-2. In cross-examination, he has deposed that the police had not recorded his statement. P.W-5-Kenduli Manjhian is the prosecutrix who has stated that the incident is of two years back. She had come home after working in the field and thereafter had gone to take a bath in the river. Her maternal uncle’s son aged four years was present in the house. After she returned from the river she gave food to the child. She has stated that Anand Mahato had grabbed her from the back and thereafter committed rape upon her. She had raised an alarm at which her brother in law Sonaram had come to whom she had disclosed the entire incident. After committing rape upon her, Anand Mahato had fled away from the place of occurrence. She has stated that her husband and mother in law had gone to the house of the maternal uncle of her husband. She had disclosed about the incident to them. In the Panchayat, Anand Mahato and his father did not come and thereafter she had lodged a case in the police station. In cross-examination, she has deposed that she knew Anand Mahato from before. Anand Mahato had never come earlier to her house. She had never seen Anand Mahato prior to the incident. When Anand Mahato had grabbed her from the back she had raised an alarm and some persons had arrived but she does not know their names. She had not stated before the police that when she returned home at 2 P.M. and went inside the house and after giving food to her four year old brother in law she had gone to close the Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 375 of 2001 3 door leading to the courtyard and somebody had caught hold of her from the back and felled her on the ground which resulted in her suffering pain in the mouth and breaking of her bangles. She has deposed that Anand Mahato was with her for an hour and on her raising alarm some persons had also assembled. The statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he has denied his involvement in the incident. The defence has examined two witnesses on its behalf. D.W-1-Sarathi Mandal has stated that the allegation against Anand Mahato is false and fabricated. He has stated that on 25.7.98 there was a quarrel between the wife of Anand Mahato and Kenduli Manjhian and Kenduli Manjhian had abused the wife of Anand Mahato. When Anand Mahato came to know about the incident from his wife he confronted Kenduli Manjhian and apart from abusing her had pushed her as well. This incident led to a Panchayti being held which was attended by Kenduli Manjhian and the family members of Anand Mahato. Anand Mahato did not attend the Panchayat as he had gone to attend a Puja. The matter was amicably settled before the Panchayat. After 3-4 days it came to light that a false case of rape has been instituted. Once again a Panchayti was held in which Sonaram Mahto had undertaken to withdraw the case. In cross-examination, he has deposed that no documents were prepared regarding the Panchayat. He had come to know about the quarrel between Kanduli Manjhian and the wife of Anand Mahato in the Panchayat itself. D.W-2-Badath Manjhi has stated that he had attended the Panchayat held on 25.7.98. He has stated that Kenduli Manjhian had disclosed before the Panchayat about her quarrel with the wife of Anand Mahato and her subsequent confrontation with Anand Mahato who had pushed her. In the Panchayat, the matter was compromised between the parties. After 4-5 days, he came to know that Kenduli Manjhian has instituted a false case. In cross-examination, he has deposed that the father in law of Kenduli Manjhian is his cousin brother. In the Panchayat, the Mukhiya and Sarpanch were not present and the persons who were present were Chetlal Mahto, Murlidhar Mahto, Daloram Mahto, Govind Mahto and Baldeo Mahto. 5. the appellant that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case It has been submitted by Mr. M.B. Lal, learned counsel appearing for against the appellant. The conviction is based upon the evidence of the Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 375 of 2001 4 prosecutrix (P.W-5) but the contradiction in her evidence makes it vulnerable, more particularly on account of the fact that she had never seen the appellant before but had conveniently named him as the perpetrator of rape committed upon her. The delay in lodging the FIR further is a pointer to the falsity of the allegations levelled against the appellant. 6. conviction of an accused can be based on the sole testimony of the Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned Special P.P. has submitted that the prosecutrix and the evidence of P.W-5 is clear, cogent and consistent with respect to the manner of occurrence and the involvement of the appellant in committing rape upon the prosecutrix. The delay in lodging the FIR has also been suitably explained by the prosecution. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides and have also perused the Lower Court Records. 8. prosecutrix being subjected to rape by the appellant when she had returned The incident, which had triggered the institution of the F.I.R, is of the to her house after having a bath in the river. The only inmate present in the house was her four year old brother in law. The delay in lodging the FIR was on account of non-availability of her husband who had gone to his maternal uncle’s place. The prosecutrix has been examined as P.W-5 and what can be deciphered from her evidence is the doubt which has been created over the identity of the offender. In her cross-examination, though P.W-5 has stated that she knew the appellant but at the same time she has stated that she had never seen the appellant prior to the incident. This would suggest that under a well thought out plan, the appellant has been implicated. She has also stated about the appellant being present in her house for one hour and some persons had assembled when she had raised an alarm. Not a single independent witness in support of such statement has been examined by the prosecution. In her cross-examination, P.W-5 has denied about disclosing to the police about her being felled down on the ground by someone after she had returned home on taking a bath in the river and this statement of P.W-5 could have received corroboration had the Investigating Officer of the case been examined. The non-examination of the Investigating Officer in such circumstances has caused prejudice to the defence. The husband of the prosecutrix has not been examined though her brother in law Sonaram Manjhi was examined and who has stated that he had returned back home from work on the same day and in such circumstance there appears to be no occasion for delay in the lodging of the F.I.R. So far as Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 375 of 2001 5 holding of a Panchayat is concerned, the same gains credence from the evidence of D.W-1 and D.W-2 though the reason for holding of the Panchayat differs. The evidence of the defence cannot be brushed aside and it has to be given the same prominence while measuring the truthfulness or otherwise of the prosecution case. A more plausible explanation seems to be forthcoming in the version of D.W-1 and D.W-2 with respect to holding of the Panchayat. 9. bordering circumstances have decimated the case of the prosecution Be that as it may, the evidence of P.W-5 discussed above and the against the appellant. The learned trial court has overtly relied upon the evidence of P.W-5 to catapult the appellant in the arena of guilt without considering the other innate features of her evidence. 10. We therefore on the basis of the discussions made hereinabove set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14.8.01 (sentenced passed on 17.8.01) passed by Shri Satyendra Kumar Gupta, learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in S.T. No. 23/99. 11. This appeal is allowed. 12. Since the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond. (R. Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi, Dated the 31/07/2024 Rakesh/NAFR 6 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 375 of 2001