Jharkhand High Court
Kalidas Soren @ Gudum Soren vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.553 of 2011
[Against the judgment of conviction dated 20.08.2011 and order of sentence
dated 24.08.2011 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge-I, Pakur in
S.T. No.60 of 2007/68 of 2011]
----
1. Kalidas Soren @ Gudum Soren
2. Soneta Tudu .... .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... Respondent
----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
----
For the Appellants : Mr. A.K. Das, Adv.
Ms. Kanishka Deo, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Someshwar Ray, A.P.P.
----
By Court:
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the State.
2. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction
dated 20.08.2011 and order of sentence dated 24.08.2011 passed by the
learned Assistant Sessions Judge-I, Pakur in S.T. No.60 of 2007/68 of 2011.
3. It appears that the criminal case has been put into motion by lodging
Maheshpur P.S. Case No.122 of 2006 dated 31.08.2006 registered for the
offence under Sections 376/511/379/34 on the basis of fardbayan wherein it
has been alleged that one Kalidas Soren @ Gudum and another person had
stopped her while she was returning to her village and they took her to
sugarcane field and she made to sit her there from 12:30 P.M. to 04:00 P.M.
and only when an old lady who was passing from there then she cried and
out of fear the accused persons fled away then she rushed out to the old lady
and went to her friend's house and told the whole story. Further, the accused
had attempted to rape her and one person had taken away her garland,
dupatta and umbrella.
4. The police after investigation has submitted the charge-sheet under
Sections 376/511/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the Trial Court had
taken cognizance and charge had been framed to which the appellants
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To substantiate the prosecution story, altogether nine witnesses had
been examined.
P.W.-1(Santoshi Bala Dasi) has been declared hostile.
P.W.-2 (Samila Hansda) is the friend of the informant/victim who has
supported the incident and was informed by the victim. As per her
deposition, two boys had caught hold the informant-victim and taken
her to sugarcane field and snatched her Dupatta, umbrella and chain.
Further, the victim had stated her that she didn't know the identity of
above two persons.
P.W.-3 (Chunda Hansda) has also deposed on the basis of information
given by the informant. As per this witness, the names of the accused
were disclosed to her.
P.W.-4 (Ruban Kisku) has been declared hostile.
P.W.-5 (Soresh Murmu) has deposed that he has been informed that
the incident has been committed by one Tala Murmu and another
person and subsequently he has been declared hostile by the
prosecution.
P.W.-6 (Bimal Hembram) is a person who had accompanied the
informant to the police station for lodging the FIR and the FIR had
been lodged against one named accused namely Kalidas Soren.
P.W.-7 (Rajendra Hansda) has been declared hostile.
P.W.-8 (Marry Margret Hembram) is the informant-victim and she has
supported the incident as disclosed in the FIR. In her deposition, she
has taken the name of both the accused. As per her deposition, she was
taken near the river in the field of sugarcane and made her to stay there
around 12:30 P.M. to 04:00 P.M. Further, they had tried to establish
physical relationship with her. Both the accused persons had fled away
on seeing an old lady. She had not told anything to the old lady and
went to the friend's house and on the next day the FIR had been
lodged.
P.W.-9 (D.N. Azad) is the Investigating Officer who has proved the
Fardbayan and has inspected the place of occurrence and has found
mark of two to three persons.
6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that
even if the prosecution story is accepted in toto the offence under Section
376/511 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. The attempt is a well-
defined concept. The attempt means it has failed due to intervening
circumstances. In the present case, no such circumstances were in existence.
As per the prosecution story, all the three persons including the victim
were in sugarcane field from 12:30 P.M. to 04:00 P.M. without any
disturbances. The old lady who was passing from there at around 04:00 P.M.
was also not informed regarding the incidence by the victim. Thus, no help
had been sought by the victim from the old lady. Thus, the conviction under
Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code has no legs to stand. So far as the
story of snatching duppatta and umbrella is concerned, there is only an oral
evidence of P.W.-8 without any corroboration from any quarter.
7. The facts and circumstances of the present case suggest that the lower
court should not have accepted the deposition without any corroboration and
as such the conviction under Sections 379 IPC is also bad in law. On the
above basis, the judgment of conviction dated 20.08.2011 and order of
sentence dated 24.08.2011 has been challenged.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the
judgment of conviction dated 20.08.2011 and order of sentence dated
24.08.2011 and it has been submitted that there is testimony of the victim
and that gets corroboration from the testimonies of P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and
P.W.-5 under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. Further, the
Investigating Officer had also found the mark of two to three persons at the
place of occurrence.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of
the materials available on record, it appears that the victim had been made to
stay in sugarcane field from 12:30 P.M. to 04:00 P.M. She had been allowed
to leave the place of occurrence around 04:00 P.M. only on the appearance
of an old lady. The old lady had not been examined rather the victim had
stated that she had not disclosed anything to the old lady. Thus, prima facie
it appears that there was no wrong force being applied by the appellants and
no sign of struggle has been found at the place of occurrence. The story
disclosed by the victim does not mean the alleged act was under the
definition of attempt. Attempt is a well-defined concept and it comes under
the purview of attempt only when the accused has introduced everything at
his command for commission of the offence. The failure is for reason
otherwise or due to the intervening circumstances. In the present case, there
were no intervening circumstances.
10. Further, the FIR has been lodged against one named and another
unknown person. As per P.W.-2, no name has been disclosed. As per the
deposition of P.W.-3, the name of the two persons had been disclosed.
P.W.-7 who is the hostile witness had disclosed the name of a person namely
Tala Murmu who has not been made accused in the present case. Thus, there
are discrepancies in the deposition of the victim and it also creates serious
doubt as she had never asked for any help from the old lady who appeared
there on around 04:00 P.M.
11. Considering the above facts, this Court finds that there is clear cut
arena of doubt in the prosecution story. It is well-settled law that the benefit
of doubt has to be extended to the appellants. Thus, giving benefit of doubt
to the appellants, the judgment of conviction dated 20.08.2011 and order of
sentence dated 24.08.2011 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge-I,
Pakur in S.T. No.60 of 2007/68 of 2011 is, hereby, set aside.
12. As the appellants are already on bail, hence they are discharged from
the liability of the bail bonds.
13. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is, hereby, allowed.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
The Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi
Dated 15th of December, 2022
Amar/NAFR/
