( -DB ) v. Laltu Bhumij

Judgment

1. 2. Suraj Patro Satyanarayan Patro @ Fenta The State of Jharkhand Versus --------- … … Appellants … … Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI For the Appellant(s) --------- : Mr. Dilip Kr. Chakraverty, Adv. (In Cr.A (D.B.). No. 13 of 2023) Mr. Gaurav, Adv. (In Cr.A (D.B.). No. 897 of 2022) Mr. Abhay Kr. Chaturvedy, Adv. Ms. Kehkashan Afsheen, Adv. (In Cr.A (D.B.). No. 12 of 2023) Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, A.P.P. Mr. Naveen Kr. Gaunjhu, A.P.P. Mr. Satish Prasad, A.P.P. For the State : Order No.12/Dated:14th July 2026 Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. -------

1. Heard Mr. Dilip Kr. Chakraverty, learned counsel for the appellant in Cr. Appeal (D.B.). No. 13 of 2023, Mr. Gaurav, learned counsel for the appellant in Cr. Appeal (D.B.). No. 897 of 2022, Mr. Abhay Kr. Chaturvedy, learned counsel for the appellant no.1 in Cr. Appeal (D.B.). No. 12 of 2023, Ms. Kehkashan Afsheen, learned counsel for the appellant no.2 in Cr. Appeal (D.B.). No. 12 of 2023 and opposed by Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. Since all these appeals arise out of a common judgment, they are being disposed of by this common order.

3. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.11.2022 (sentence passed on 30.11.2022) passed by Shri Rajendra Kumar Sinha, learned Special Judge (FTC) CAW, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in S.T. No. 295 of 2021, whereby and whereunder the appellants in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 13 of 2023 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 12 of 2023 have been convicted for the offence under section 376D IPC and they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder period of their natural life, along with a fine of Rs.50,000/- each and in default in payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. The appellant in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 897 of 2022 has been convicted for the offence under Section 411 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default in payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

4. The prosecution case arises out of the written report submitted by the victim ‘X’ in which it has been stated that about a week back the informant had received a call on her mobile in which the caller had asked for her name and when the informant had retorted as to who had given him her mobile number, the caller had disclosed that he had obtained her number from a girl of the village and he had also expressed his desire to solemnize marriage with her. The caller, who had identified himself as Arjun, started making regular calls on the mobile of the informant and on 29.07.2021 at

7.00 p.m. the caller asked the informant to get ready as he is coming to pick her up. It has been alleged that the said Arjun had come on a bike along with his friend and the informant went off with them. It has further been alleged that Arjun had also called some of his friends and in total 6 persons had forcibly taken the informant to an isolated place near Sidhu Kanhu Chowk and had committed rape upon her. She was thereafter left at Sidhu Kanhu Chowk at 10.00 p.m. and when she was returning home alone she had met a boy from her village and he had informed the Mukhiya of the village and the police after which she was brought to the police station where her written report was taken. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Parsudih P.S. Case No. 2 146/2021 was instituted under Section 376D IPC. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as S.T. No.295/2025. Charge was framed against all the accused under Section 376D IPC and additionally against Suraj Karmakar under Section 379 IPC and against Laltu Bhumij under Section 411 IPC which were read over and explained to them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution has examined as many as 5 witnesses in support of its case.

6. P.W.1 victim ‘X’ is the informant who has proved the written report which has been marked as Exhibit-1. She has stated that about one week prior to the incident, Arjun had called her and expressed his desire to solemnize marriage with her. On the date of the incident, Arjun had come on a motorcycle with two other boys and called her. It was about 8.00 p.m. She was made to sit on the motorcycle in which three boys were already sitting. Arjun had called four other persons and by taking her to a considerable distance from her house, four persons had committed rape upon her. She was thereafter left at Sidhu Kanhu Chowk after which the miscreants had left. When she was returning home, she had met a person who had called the Pradhan and Mukhiya of the village. They had called the police from Parsudih P.S. and after the police came, she had submitted a written report in the police station. She had identified through video conferencing Suraj Karmakar who had introduced himself as Arjun to her and he had committed rape upon her. She had also identified Suraj Patro and Satya Narayan Patro who also had committed rape upon her. She could not identify the other two accused through video conferencing. She has identified her signature in her 164 Cr.P.C. statement which has been marked as Exhibit-2. She has also proved her signature on the seizure list of seized leggings which has been marked as Exhibit-3. In cross-examination, she has deposed that her marriage has been solemnized with her brother-in-law. She had eloped and got married. At the time of the incident, she was carrying a pregnancy of four months. The 3 father of the child in her womb was her brother-in-law. She has deposed that she had willingly gone and met Suraj Karmakar. She does not know anyone except Suraj. Laltu Bhumij was not present at the place of occurrence. She has also deposed that the police had conducted a test identification parade.

7. P.W.2 Sonika Bhumij and P.W.3 Binoti Bhumij have not supported the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile by the prosecution.

8. P.W.4 Dr. Prem Lata was posted as a Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital, Khas Mahal, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur and on 30.07.2021, she had examined the victim ‘X’ and had found the following: “IV. External examination:- Height-147 cm, Weight-39 kg., Teeth- 15/14 axillary hair well developed, Breast well developed, with dark nipples, no mark of injury in the vicinity, Pubic hair present and no mark of injuries on whole body thighs and vulva. Internal examination:- No tear or injury near or in the vagina, hymen old torn, vaginal discharge present. Investigation:- VI. (i) Urine HCG done by dept. of Pathology Sadar Hospital, report V. negative. (ii) X ray wrist and elbow for determination of age done by dept. of radiology Sadar Hospital vide reg. no.E9956 dt.31.07.2021, report age about 18 yrs or above. (iii) Vaginal swab and smear tested for presence of spermatozoa done by department of pathology MGM Medical College, Jamshedpur. Report- no spermatozoa found. (iv) Ultrasonography pelvis done by dept. of radiology Sadar Hospital Jamshedpur, vide reg. no. E9956 dt. 31.07.2021. report- single live fetus of 18 weeks and one day duration with breech presentation at the time of scan.” The age of victim ‘X’ was opined to be 18 years or above. The victim ‘X’ was carrying a pregnancy of 18 weeks. She has proved the medical report which has been marked as Exhibit P-4/P.W.4. In cross-examination, she has deposed that she had not found any evidence of rape upon the victim ‘X’.

9. P.W.5 Munni Kumari was posted as a Sub-Inspector of Police at Parsudih P.S. and on 30.07.2021, on the basis of the written report of victim 4 ‘X’, Parsudih P.S. Case No. 146/2021 was registered. She was given the charge of the investigation. She has proved the handwriting of the Officer In- charge, Parsudih P.S. Shri Bimal Kindo on the registration of F.I.R. which has been proved and marked as Exhibit P-1/1 / PW5. She has proved the formal F.I.R. which has been marked as Exhibit P-5/PW5. She has stated that on 29.07.2021 at about 10.30 p.m. an information was received that near Sidhu Kanhu Chowk, a girl was wandering around, after which a station diary entry was made and the girl was brought to the police station where she had submitted a written report. She had recorded the restatement of the informant as well as the statements of Sonika Bhumij and Binoti Bhumij. She had inspected the place of occurrence which is in the bushes behind the backside of Kaliyadih Goshala. She had taken the victim for medical examination to Sadar Hospital. The wearing apparels of the victim were seized and a seizure list was prepared which has been proved and marked as Exhibit P-6/PW5. The 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim was recorded on

31.07.2021. The accused Laltu Bhumij was arrested and his confessional statement recorded and on his confession, the motorcycle used in the commission of the offence and the mobile of the victim were recovered. He has proved the confessional statement of Laltu Bhumij which has been marked as Exhibit P-7/PW5. The seizure list of motorcycle and the mobile has been proved and marked as Exhibit P-8/PW5. On 08.08.2021 Saroj Karmakar @ Suraj Karmakar @ Arjun was arrested and his confessional statement was recorded. The said confessional statement has been proved and marked as Exhibit P-10/PW5. The seizure list of seized mobile of Suraj Karmakar has been proved and marked as Exhibit P-9/PW5. On the disclosure of Suraj Patro, a motorcycle was recovered and seized and a seizure list prepared which has been proved and marked as Exhibit P- 11/PW5. The accused Satya Narayan Patro was arrested and his confessional statement was also recorded. The accused Russell Kujur was arrested and his confessional statement was recorded. The said confessional statement has been proved and marked as Exhibit P-13/PW5. The motorcycle used in the offence was seized on the confession of Russell Kujur and the seizure list has been proved and marked as Exhibit P-12/PW5. She had submitted 5 charge sheet against Suraj Kishore, Laltu Bhumij, Suraj Patro, Satya Narayan Patro and Russell Kujur while keeping the investigation pending against the other accused persons. One Rahul Kumar Singh had surrendered in court and he was taken on police remand after which his confessional statement was recorded which has been proved and marked as Exhibit P- 14/PW5. Charge sheet was submitted against Rahul Kumar Singh on completion of investigation. In cross-examination he has deposed that he did not make any seizures from the place of occurrence. He had not conducted a test identification parade.

10. The statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C in which they have denied their complicity in the commission of the offence.

11. It has been submitted by Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellant no. 1 in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 12/2023 that the prosecution has failed to prove that the victim ‘X’ was subjected to rape by the appellants. The prosecution has made out an improbable story only in order to hide the fact that she was impregnated by her brother-in-law. Mr. Chaturvedi has submitted that no test identification parade was held and the identification in the dock for the first time would not be a clinching piece of evidence for the prosecution. The medical report is also not supportive of the allegation of rape against the appellants.

12. Mr. D.K. Chakraverty and Ms. Kehkashan Afsheen, learned counsels appearing for the other appellants have adopted the submissions advanced by Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellant no. 1 in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 12/2023.

13. Learned APPs appearing for the State have mainly focused on the evidence of P.W.1 while submitting that P.W.1 was subjected to gang rape and she has identified the accused who were involved in such heinous act. The identification in the dock is a substantial piece of evidence and the same cannot be simply brushed aside on the ground that no TIP was held. 6

14. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides and have also perused the trial court records.

15. The allegation of gang rape committed by the appellants barring Laltu Bhumij, the appellant in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 897/22 has been preceded by a phone call to victim ‘X’ by a caller who identified himself as Arjun and who at the very first instance expressed his desire to solemnize marriage with victim ‘X’. After conversing for a week, the appellant Suraj Karmakar @ Arjun picked up the victim ‘X’ from near her house and she was taken to an isolated place where the appellant Suraj Karmakar and others had committed rape upon her. The carnal desires of the appellants having been satisfied, the victim ‘X’ was left at Sidhu Kanhu Chowk and on the way she met a person who had consequently informed the police leading to submission of a written report by victim ‘X’. The allegation made in the written report has been supported by victim ‘X’ in her evidence as P.W.1. However, in her cross examination, a different scenario has emerged with the introduction of her brother-in-law as the person with whom she was having an affair and who was the cause for her pregnancy. She has further stated that she had willingly gone and met Suraj and did not know the other persons present except Suraj. It is to be noted that victim ‘X’ was a major and despite having a love affair with her brother-in-law, she had willingly accompanied Suraj Karmakar on his motorcycle. This gives an altogether different dimension to the case touching upon the persona of victim ‘X’. The entire case of the prosecution is based upon the evidence of P.W.1. Even the mother and aunt of victim ‘X’ who have been examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3 respectively have not supported the case of the prosecution. The person from whom victim ‘X’ had sought assistance after the incident has not been examined by the prosecution. The medical report also does not support her cause or does not support the case of the prosecution as despite four persons allegedly committing rape upon victim ‘X’, neither there was any sign of rape nor there was any injury found on the person of victim ‘X’. There was also no evidence of forceful sexual intercourse.

16. The demeanor of victim ‘X’ also runs contrary to what has been 7 alleged by her. The appellant Suraj Karmakar with whom the victim ‘X’ had never met as per her evidence called her to pick her up to which she willingly agreed. When Suraj Karmakar came, he was accompanied by three other boys and she boarded the motorcycle without even expressing a hint of suspicion despite all the persons being unknown to her. The accused persons after committing such vile act had not abandoned victim ‘X’ but had left her at Sidhu Kanhu Chowk. All this act speaks of the willingness of victim ‘X’ to accede to the sexual overtures of the appellant Suraj Karmakar. So far as the other appellants are concerned barring Laltu Bhumij including Suraj Karmakar, all were identified by victim ‘X’ for the first time in dock through video conferencing. Admittedly, no TIP was held.

17. As we have noted above, the evidence of P.W.1 is pregnant with contradictions and doubts and such evidence cannot be considered to be of a sterling quality and in this context Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellant no. 1 in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 12/2023 has referred to the case of Rai Sandeep vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21 wherein it has been held as follows: “In our considered opinion, the “sterling witness” should be of a very high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can 8 even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a “sterling witness” whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.”

18. The learned trial court had put undue reliance on the evidence of P.W.1 without considering its inherent weaknesses and contradictions and based on the reasonings as aforesaid, we hereby set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.11.2022 (sentence passed on

30.11.2022) passed by Shri Rajendra Kumar Sinha, learned Special Judge (FTC) CAW, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in S.T. No. 295 of 2021.

20. These appeals are allowed. Since the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.13/2023 and the appellants in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 12/2023 are in custody, they are directed to be released immediately and forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. So far as the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 897/2022 is concerned, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.

21. Pending interlocutory application (s), if any, stand(s) closed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Dated: 14th July 2026 Shamim/- Uploaded on: 20 /07/2026 9