The High Court
Case Details
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 978 of 2012 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI [Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.09.2012 passed by Sri Sifat Ahmad, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat in connection with S.T. No. 112 of 2008, arising out of Dugda P.S. Case No. 20 of 2007, Corresponding to G.R. No. 627 of 2007] Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 978 of 2012 Sant Kumar Chouhan … Appellant The State of Jharkhand … Respondent -Versus- ----------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH ---------- For the Appellant : M/s. Renu Bala, Advocate For the State For the Informant : M/s. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate : M/s. A. K. Tiwari, A.P.P. --------- C.A.V. On 18.04.2024 Pronounced on 19.09.2024 1.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Ms. Renu Bala learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. A. K. Tiwari learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.09.2012 passed by Sri Sifat Ahmad, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat in connection with S.T. No. 112 of 2008, arising out of Dugda P.S. Case No. 20 of 2007, Corresponding to G.R. No. 627 of 2007, holding the appellant guilty of offence under sections 376/420 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby sentencing him to undergo R.I for seven years along with a fine of rupees 20,000/- for the offence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Fifty percent of the fine amount was ordered to be given as compensation to the victim. The appellant was further sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years along with a fine of rupees 10,000/- for the offence under section, 420 of the Indian penal code and fifty percent of the fine amount was further directed to be given as compensation to the victim. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 978 of 2012 2 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of complaint case filed against the appellant Sant Kumar Chouhan on 24.07.2007 being Complaint Case No. 247 of 2007. This complaint case was referred to Dugda police station under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and accordingly FIR was registered. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant on the basis of false promise had established physical relationship with the prosecutrix. It is further case of the prosecution that the appellant was already married from before and was having three children. It is also case of the prosecution that the complainant had taken two lakh rupees from the prosecutrix but did not return the same. 4. Charge was framed against the appellant on 10.09.2009 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. The appellant has also adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of his case. On the basis of the materials available on the record, the learned trial court held the appellant guilty and sentenced him accordingly. 6. Now it has to be ascertained that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. 7. The prosecutrix has been examined as P.W.3. She has stated in her deposition that she was working in Damodar colliery of M/s BCCL as dispatch clerk. The appellant was also working with her as a clerk. On 24.03.2006 at about 07:00 P.M, when the prosecutrix was alone in her house. The appellant came there and raped her. When the prosecutrix protested he promised that he will marry her. Thereafter the appellant started establishing physical relationship with her. On 20.02.2007, the appellant took the prosecutrix to Black Diamond Hotel where they stayed in Room No. 204 and the appellant took rupees 2 lakh from the prosecutrix in the hotel itself, later on the appellant refused to marry the prosecutrix and stated that he was already married from before and was having three children, a Panchayati was held in which the appellant has admitted his guilt, but refused to marry the prosecutrix as he was already married from before having three children. The prosecutrix has been Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 978 of 2012 3 cross-examined at length. She has admitted that she had gone with the appellant to Black Diamond hotel and stayed in Room No. 204. Ram Swaroop Chouhan P.W.1 has stated that he was acquainted with both the prosecutrix and the appellant. He has further stated that in March 2006, the appellant came to his quarter and confessed that he had committed wrong and on the false pretext of marriage he had established physical relationship with the prosecutrix and he further confessed that he has also taken rupees 2 lakh from her but does not want to return the same. This witness has further stated that a meeting was held in which the appellant had admitted his guilt. This witness has been cross-examined at length. He has stated that his quarter is at a distance of about half a kilometer from the quarter of prosecutrix. He has denied the suggestion that the appellant had not confessed his guilt before him. Devanand Chauhan, P.W.2 has been declared hostile. Amod Narayan Singh P.W.4 is the investigating officer of this case. He has proved the application of the complaint petition which is Ext.- 1. He has proved the formal FIR which is Ext.-3. He has also proved the place of occurrence, which is the quarter of the prosecutrix situated in Dugda colliery. He has stated that he has visited Black Diamond Hotel and gathered documentary evidence from which it transpires that the appellant and the prosecutrix had gone to the Black Diamond Hotel. Siyaram Prasad Chauhan has been examined as D.W.1. He is the principal of Vidyasagar High School, he has denied that a Panchayati was held to resolve the dispute between the prosecutrix and the appellant. The register of the Black Diamond Hotel has also been adduced in evidence which has been marked as Exhibit. From the perusal of which, it transpires that both the appellant and the prosecutrix had stayed there. Learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that this is a case of consensual sex between the parties. It will be apparent from the fact that both were visiting hotels together. It was also submitted that prosecution has not brought any material on the record to Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 978 of 2012 4 prove that the appellant was married from before. Accordingly, it was prayed that the appellant be acquitted of the charge and this appeal be allowed. 8. The prosecutrix who has been examined as P.W.3 has categorically stated that initially, the appellant had forcibly raped her and thereafter he had promised to marry her, she has further stated that the appellant continued to establish physical relationship with her and this fact is also corroborated by the fact that they were visiting hotels. The prosecutrix has specifically stated that the complainant at the time of establishing physical relationship with her was already married having three children. She has not been cross-examined on this point. Ram Swaroop Chouhan P.W.1 has also stated that the appellant had made an extra judicial confession before him and has admitted his guilt. He has stated that the appellant had told him that he on the false pretext of marriage had established physical relationship with the prosecutrix. He has also stated that the appellant was a married person having three children. This witness is an independent witness and there is nothing in his cross-examination to doubt his veracity. 9. From the facts and circumstances of this case, it is evident that the consent for sexual intercourse was obtained by the appellant from the prosecutrix on the false pretext of marriage at the very inception of their relationship. The appellant being a married person having three children was very much aware of the fact that he could not marry the prosecutrix and he had no intention to adhere to his promise. The false promise of the appellant for obtaining consent for sexual relationship bears a direct nexus to the prosecutrix decision to engage in sexual act. The appellant had played a fraud in obtaining the consent of the prosecutrix for sexual intercourse and the same will come within the definition of rape. 10. From the aforesaid facts; I am of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case, against the appellant for the offence under Sections 376/420 of the Indian Penal Code. 11 The learned trial court, has rightly held him guilty under the aforesaid sections, the sentence imposed by the learned trial court is Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 978 of 2012 5 proportionate to the gravity of the offence and does not require any interference. 12 13 This appeal is dismissed. The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds are cancelled and the learned trial court is directed to take him into custody to serve the remaining sentence. 14.
Decision
Pending I.A. if any, also stands disposed of. (Ambuj Nath J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi. Dated:- 19.09.2024 Saurabh