Jharkhand High Court · 2026

I have already heard the arguments of Mr. Aniket Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 05.04.2005 and 06.04.2005 respectively, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Gumla in S.T. No. 157 of 2004, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Sections 376 of the I.P.C and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years along with fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulation. Factual Matrix

3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal as per written report (Exhibit-3) of the informant, (P.W.-9) is that on 01.02.2004 at about 07:00 P.M., a quarrel had taken place in between the informant and his brother. On 02.02.2004 at about 05:00 A.M., the informant left her house carrying an attachi case and reached Gumla Bus Stand by a bus at about 09:00 A.M. The accused Sanjay Nayak, who was well known to the informant, met with her at Gumla Bus Stand. Upon being asked, she informed him that she had left her house due to a dispute with her brother. The accused assured her and requested her to accompany him to his house until her parents arrived. Relying upon the assurance given by the accused, the informant and the accused boarded a bus for Chainpur. The bus reached near Saint Balika Uchcha Vidyalaya, Chainpur at about 12 noon. Thereafter, the accused got down from the bus and requested the informant also to get down. The informant, accordingly, got down from the bus along with her attachi case. The accused then took her to the house of Shankar Ram situated at Harizan Colony, Basar Toli. The accused forcibly threw her to the ground and committed rape against her will. When, she tried to resist, the accused intimidated her and threatened to kill her with a dagger. After satisfying his lust, the accused left the spot taking the informant’s attachi case. Later, when the informant arrived at the house of the accused, he handed the attachi case back to her and warned her to go straight home, otherwise he will kill her. Out of fear, she somehow managed to reach the Chainpur police station and submitted a written complaint. On the basis of above written report, Chainpur P.S. Case No. 04 of 2004 was registered for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C.

4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused for the aforesaid offence. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and subsequently, the case was committed to the Court of 2 Sessions, where S.T. No. 157 of 2004 was registered. The charge was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In the course of trial, altogether 10 witnesses were examined by the prosecution:- (i) P.W.-1-Chando Devi (ii) P.W.-2-Bimla Devi (iii) P.W.-3-Shankar Malar (iv) P.W.-4-Sumitra Devi (v) P.W.-5-Doctor Renu Bakhla (vi) P.W.-6-Koyali Kumari (vii) P.W.-7-Rajmuni Kumari (viii) P.W.-8-Jagatpal Malar (ix) P.W.-9-Victim girl (x) P.W.-10-Devendar Kumar Mishra (I.O. of this case)

6. Apart from oral testimony following documentary evidence have also been adduced by prosecution. (i) Exhibit-1-Signature of Chando Devi on seizure list (ii) Exhibit-1/1-Signature of Bimla Devi on seizure list (iii) Exhibit-2-Injury report of the victim girl (iv) Exhibit-3-Signature of the victim girl on fardbeyan (v) Exhibit-4-Seizure list

7. On the other hand, two defence witnesses, namely Manu Gope (D.W.-1) and Santosh Kumar Singh (D.W.-2) have been adduced by the defence. 3 However, the defence has also adduced four documentary evidence, which are as follows:- (i) Exhibit-A-Affidavit of Sanjay Nayak (ii) Exhibit-A/1-Affidavit of the victim girl (iii) Exhibit-B-Compromise petition of the victim girl (iv) Exhibit-B/1-Compromise petition of Sanjay Nayak

8. The case of defence is denial from occurrence, plea of innocence and false implication.

9. After conclusion of trial, the appellant was held guilty for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and sentenced as stated above which has been assailed in this appeal. Submissions on behalf of appellant: -

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Trial Court has erred in appreciating the evidence on record and has based the finding of guilt on surmises and conjectures. It is further submitted that there is no eye-witness to the alleged occurrence, the prosecution witnesses have not supported the case in material particulars and the chemical analysis report of the semen was not produced. It is also submitted that appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years out of which, he has already remained in custody for about four years. It was first offence of the appellant and he has never been convicted for any other offence. Learned counsel submitted that the occurrence is of the year 2004 and now more than two decades have passed from the date of occurrence. The appellant has sufficiently been 4 punished for his guilt and again sending the appellant for sustaining rest period of imprisonment would yield no useful purpose. Hence, the sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the imprisonment already undergone by him to meet the ends of justice in this case. Submissions on behalf of State: -

11. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has defended the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence on merits and submitted that the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant and there is no merit in this appeal which is fit to be dismissed. Analysis, discussions and reasons:-

12. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order along with the record of the case in the light of rival contentions of the learned counsel for the respective parties.

13. From the evidence of the victim, P.W.-9, it appears that her testimony is consistent, cogent and inspires confidence. She has categorically supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the forcible sexual intercourse committed by the appellant against her will.

14. Her testimony is further corroborated by the prompt lodging of the F.I.R. on the same day and by the medical evidence of P.W.-5, who found loss of virginity and ruptured hymen. Though the doctor has not specifically opined regarding commission of rape, the medical findings are consistent with the prosecution version. The fact that some independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case does not discredit the reliable testimony of the victim.

15. Thus, on an overall appreciation of the evidence, this Court finds 5 that the prosecution has proved the charge under Section 376 of the I.P.C. against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. is hereby upheld and confirmed.

16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of offence alleged to have been committed by the appellant and also in view of the fact that the appellant has already remained in custody for about four years during the pendency of trial and post-conviction, it appears to be sufficient punishment for his guilt for the offence committed by him and his sentence is reduced from R.I. of 5 years to the imprisonment already undergone by him during trial of the case.

17. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence as stated above.

18. Appellant is on bail, as such he is discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties are also discharged.

19. Pending I.A(s), if any, stands disposed of.

20. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court Dated 20/08/2026 Arpit/ N. A. F. R. Uploaded on 20/08/2026 6