Jharkhand High Court
Pritam Sah vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 December, 2022
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 262 of 2011
---
(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.02.2011passed by
Sri. Rama Shankar Shukla, the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.-V,
Godda in Sessions Case No.193 of 2010/84/2008.
---
Pritam Sah ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
---
For the Appellant :Mr. M.K.Sah
For the State :Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, A.P. P.
---
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
counsel for the State.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 23.02.2011 passed by the learned
Addl. District & Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.-V, Godda in Sessions
Case No.84 of 2008 (Trial No.193 of 2010) whereby and
whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence
under Sections 354 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code and the
maximum sentence imposed upon him is to undergo R.I. for two
years.
The prosecution story as disclosed in the F.I.R. being
Meharma (Thakur Gangti) P.S. Case No.85 of 2007 under Sections
376, 511 and 428 of the IPC to the effect that on 06.06.2007 at
about 10 PM when the informant was sleeping in her house, the
accused Pritam Sah made an attempt to commit rape upon her.
On raising hulla, her husband arrived there and caught the
accused at the spot. In order to escape the lungi and chadar has
been left by the accused.
On lodging of such F.I.R., the investigation has been done
and police has found the allegation true, accordingly charge sheet
has been submitted. Charge has been framed under Sections 376,
511 and 448 of the IPC to which the appellant has pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
To substantiate the prosecution story altogether five
witnesses have been examined.
P.W.-1- Govind Sah is the co-villager of the informant and
he has reached at the place of occurrence after hearing hulla and
thereafter he has been told that such incident has taken place.
P.W.- 2-Gopal Sah is the husband of the prosecutrix and eye-
witnessed to the incident. He has tried to catch the accused inside
the house but he has fled away. P.W.-3-Sikandar Sah is also
witness to the effect that he has seen the accused inside the
house. P.W.-4 Fulo Devi is the informant herself and she has
supported the prosecution story. P.W.-5-Satyendra Singh is the
Investigating Officer and he has proved the seizure cum
production list of the lungi and chadar belonging to the accused
person. Defense has examined one Ashok Sah as D.W.-1 who has
deposed that due to the village dispute, this false case has been
lodged.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant
that there is contradiction between the prosecution story. In the
F.I.R., it has been stated that lungi and chadar has been left in
the house of the prosecutrix but seizure list has been prepared in
the police station. There is village dispute and as such false
allegation cannot be ruled out. It has been further submitted that
the fardbeyan has been given on the next date but F.I.R. has been
lodged after two days. Thus, it has been submitted that there is
sufficient discrepancies which creates doubt in the prosecution
story and it settled law that the benefit of doubt has to be
extended in favour of the accused person.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has
support the judgment of conviction and submitted that it has been
witnessed by the informant and husband and both have stood to
their testimonies. No contradiction has been extracted in the
cross-examination. Further, the testimonies of these witnesses get
corroboration from the seizure of lungi and chadar belonging to
the accused person. Thus, there are sufficient materials available
on record.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from
perusal of record, it appears that P.W.-2 and P.W.-4 are the eye-
witnesses and their deposition get corroboration from the
deposition of the Investigating Officer i.e. P.W.-5. The seizure list
corroborates the prosecution story. Accordingly, the incident has
been sufficiently evidenced but the trial court has rightly held that
the ingredients of Sections 376/ 511 of IPC are not present.
Accordingly, the court below has rightly convicted the appellant
under Sections 354 and 448 of IPC only.
In view of above discussion, this Court finds that no
interference is required in the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 23.02.2011 passed by the learned Addl. District &
Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.-V, Godda in Sessions Case No.84 of 2008
(Trial No.193 of 2010). Consequently, the appeal fails. Office is
directed to return the file to the trial court.
Court below is directed to take steps for apprehension of
the accused and committing him to the prison to serve out rest of
the sentence as awarded to him vide judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 23.02.2011.
(Rajesh Kumar, J)
Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi
The 05th December, 2022
Shahid/N.A.F.R./
