Jharkhand High Court
Gobind Sahu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 November, 2022
1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 238 of 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 238 of 2007
------
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 21.02.2007 and order of
sentence dated 22.02.2007 passed by learned 1st AJC-cum-Spl.
Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Ranchi in Sessions
Trial Case No. 136/2005 in connection with Sikidari P.S. Case No.
15/2004, corresponding to G.R. No. 1616/2004 Ranchi at
Jharkhand.)
Gobind Sahu ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Ram Naresh Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Tarun Kumar, Addl. P.P.
-------
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
Judgment: Dated: 10th November, 2022
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of
conviction dated 21.02.2007 and order of sentence dated 22.02.2007
passed by learned 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-Spl.
Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Ranchi in Sessions
Trial Case No. 136/2005 in connection with Sikidari P.S. Case No.
15/2004, corresponding to G.R. No. 1616/2004 Ranchi at Jharkhand
whereby and where under the sole appellant has been convicted for
the offence punishable u/s 3(1) (xii) of S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of
atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as the S.C./S.T. Act, for the
sake of brevity) and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 04 years and
a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine the appellant
was further directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 2 months.
2. The prosecution story arose in the wake of written report of
the victim P.W. 5 addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Govt. of
Jharkhand on 03.06.2004. Briefly stating the allegation as stated in
2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 238 of 2007
the said written report that the accused appellant Govind Sahu was
making sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix by assuring her that
the accused would marry her. It is also alleged that the prosecutrix
was aborted by the accused once during her pregnancy and when
the prosecutrix had protested the abortion, the accused assured her
by telling that the couple were young and they would give birth to
the children sometime thereafter. It is further the case of the
prosecution that the accused called the prosecutrix to her shop and
applied vermillion on her head. The prosecutrix accepted the
accused as her husband and was doing as was told by the accused.
At the time of lodging of the FIR it is claimed that the prosecutrix
was pregnant for four months. It is further alleged that the accused
entered into a second marriage by cheating the prosecutrix out of
the greed for tilak and started behaving with the prosecutrix as a
prostitute and was telling the prosecutrix that he had no intention to
marry the prosecutrix and was interested only to satisfy his sexual
desire. There was also allegation that the accused had threatened the
prosecutrix to eliminate her being an adivasi and also threatened the
prosecutrix to leave Sikidari and to go to some other place.
3. The prosecutrix first approached Sikidari Police Station on
06.05.2004 but her complaint was not entertained in the police
station and she was alleged have been driven out from the police
station. Thereafter, the prosecutrix wrote a letter to the Hon'ble
Chief Minister of Jharkhand who forwarded the complaint of the
informant to Sikidari P.S. and on the basis of the same Sikidari P.S.
Case No. 15/04 was registered under section 498-A/376 of IPC and
under section 3/4 of S.C/S.T Act and police took up investigation of
the case. After completion of investigation, the police submitted
charge sheet against the petitioner for having committed offence
punishable u/s 376 of IPC and under section 3(xii) and 3(2)(v) of
S.C./S.T. Act.
3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 238 of 2007
After cognizance the case was committed to the court of
Sessions and the charges were framed against him on 30 May 2005
by Spl. Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Ranchi u/s 376 of IPC and under section
3 (1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. Act.
4. The learned trial court after conducting the full-fledged trial,
passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence,
which is under challenge in this appeal.
5. Heard Mr. Ram Naresh Singh, the learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Tarun Kumar, the learned Addl.P.P. for the State.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant
6. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence is based on surmises and conjectures and the testimony of
the witnesses has not been examined in a holistic manner and the
learned court below passed the impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence without proper application of judicial mind. It
has been contended that utmost it is a case of bigamy where the
victim instituted the case after solemnizing of the second marriage
by the appellant as stated categorically and consistently by the
witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution including the
victim P.W. 5. It has been pointed out that the victim P.W. 5
categorically stated in her deposition that she had been living
willingly after solemnizing the marriage with the appellant. And
when the appellant wanted to solemnize the marriage with another
woman then the she has instituted the case and therefore there is no
question of any offence punishable u/s 3(1) (xii) of the S.C./S.T. Act
and therefore the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence is bad in law and fit to be set aside.
4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 238 of 2007
Arguments advanced on behalf of the State
7. On the other hand, learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State
opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and stated
that the learned trial court has rightly relied upon the evidences
adduced on behalf of the prosecution, particularly P.W. 5, victim,
who stated that she has established physical relationship with the
appellant under the pretext of marriage and she stated that after
solemnizing the marriage with the appellant she had been living
with the appellant and she also became pregnant and when the
appellant solemnized another marriage then this case was instituted
and therefore the learned trial court has rightly passed the
impugned judgment of conviction, therefore, this appeal is fit to be
dismissed being devoid of merit.
Appraisal and Findings
8. Having heard the parties, perused the record of this case
including the Lower Court Records.
9. In order to, substantiate its case the prosecution has been able
to examine altogether 09 witnesses who are as under:
P.W.1 Sheela Devi
P.W.2 Jhalo Devi
P.W.3 Urmila Devi
P.W.4 Dasmi Devi
P.W.5 Prosecutix herself
P.W.6 Sita Ram Bedia
P.W.7 Ram Kishore Bedia
P.W.8 Shivaji Singh (I.O.)
P.W.9 Dr. Manju Prasad
Apart from the oral evidences some documentary evidences
has also been produced on behalf of the prosecution which are as
under:-
i. Ext. 1 Written Report
ii. Ext.1/1 Endorsement
5 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 238 of 2007
iii. Ext. 2 Charge sheet
iv. Ext. 3 Medical Examination report
10. P.W.1 Sheela Devi was the Chair-person of Mahila Samiti of
her village, she stated clearly in para 15 that the prosecutirx was the
first wife of the appellant Govind Sahu and the appellant
solemnized the second marriage then she instituted the case against
him.
11. P.W.2 Jhalo Devi was the maternal grandmother of the
prosecutrix and she clearly stated that the accused appellant used to
visit to the house of P.W. 2 in the night where the prosecutrix was
living with P.W.2 and when the appellant got married for the
second time, then the prosecutrix revealed the fact that she was
pregnant by the accused. She stated that she did not know about
any occurrence and police has not recorded her statement. And thus
this witness has not supported the case of the prosecution at all that
the victim girl was being sexually exploited within the meaning
section 3 (1) (xii) of the S.C. /S.T. Act.
12. P.W.3 Urmila Devi has stated that when accused appellant
Gobind Sahu got married, the prosecutrix disclosed that she was
pregnant for three months with the accused and the accused had put
vermillion on her head. This witness further stated that a meeting of
the villagers was held in this connection but Gobind Sahu did not
turn up in the meeting. Thereafter the case was instituted. She
stated in her cross examination that this case was instituted by the
victim when the appellant solemnized second marriage.
13. P.W.4 Dasmi Devi stated that the prosecutrix had told her that
she was working in the mess and the accused Gobind Sahu used to
visit her there. She further stated that when accused Gobind Sahu
went for second marriage a meeting was held in the village but
Gobind Sahu did not turn up in the said meeting and after that the
prosecutrix instituted the case, and thus she substantiated the fact
6 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 238 of 2007
that the victim had instituted this case when the appellant
solemnized second marriage.
14. P.W.5 prosecutrix herself was the informant and victim of this
case. From the testimonies of this witness it is categorically found
that she had been living with the appellant in a friendship and both
were having a good relationship and on the visiting terms and
moving eating and dining together and she has also categorically
stated that the appellant had solemnized marriage with her and she
had become pregnant after getting married with appellant. She had
categorically stated in her answer of the question no. 3 that she had
been living willingly with the appellant and while she was living in
a mess she used to live with the appellant at night and she lived
with him for three years and when the appellant solemnized
another marriage then the case was instituted and she did not
institute any case against the appellant when both were living
happily and the case was instituted only when the appellant
solemnized another marriage.
15. P.W.6 Sita Ram Bedia stated that prosecutrix was having
wrong (sexual) relationship with the accused and she became
pregnant, later the accused Gobind Sahu married for the second
time then the prosecutrix complained to Mahila Samiti of Sikidari
and the Mahila Samiti verbally told the PW-6 and others to call
Gobind Sahu but the father of Gobind Sahu told that they would not
go to the Mahila Samiti. In para 6 he stated that his submission was
not recorded by the police and he also stated that this case was
instituted when the appellant solemnized another marriage.
16. P.W.7 Ram Kishore Bedia has also supported the defence
taken on behalf of the appellant that this case was instituted when
the appellant solemnized another marriage.
17. P.W.8 Shivaji Singh is the I.O. of this case and he has proved
the endorsement made by the in-charge of Sikidari Police Station on
7 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 238 of 2007
the written report of the informant which has been marked as
Ext.1/1 and after investigation of the case he submitted the charge
sheet which has been marked as Ext.2. In para 15 this witness has
stated that both the appellant and the victim were living as husband
and wife and the case was registered when the appellant solemnized
another marriage.
18. P.W.9 Dr. Manju Prasad is a doctor and she stated that on
16.04.2004 she examined the prosecutrix. Under the circumstances of
this case the deposition of the doctor is not very much relevant in
view of the fact that the victim P.W. 5 categorically stated that she
had solemnized the marriage with the appellant and she has also
become pregnant but when the appellant solemnized the second
marriage she has instituted the case. The doctor did not find any
sexual assault and she categorically stated in para 8 no positive
evidence of rape on the victim.
19. Recapitulating the evidences of witnesses examined on behalf
of the prosecution in the foregoing paragraphs and the evaluation
of the evidences in a holistic manner, it is well founded that it is
admitted case of the prosecution that the victim P.W. 5 has
solemnized the marriage with the appellant willingly and
voluntarily and as she categorically stated that a friendship was
developed between them and thereafter they started moving, dining
and going together and established the physical relationship and
after getting married with the appellant, she became pregnant. The
dispute arose between them when the appellant solemnized another
marriage.
20. In view of the aforesaid established facts, any kind of
exploitation has not been found within the meaning of section 3(1)
(xii) which reads as under :
3. Punishments for offences of atrocities- (1) whoever not being
a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe-
8 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 238 of 2007
(xii) being in a position to dominate the will of a woman belonging
to a Scheduled Cast or a Scheduled Tribe and uses that position to
exploit her sexually to which she would not have otherwise agreed;
Shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be
less than six months but which may extend to five years and with
fine.
21. In view of the categorical provisions of the law for the offence
within the section 3(1)(xii) of the S.C./S.T. Act the case of the
prosecution totally gets demolished in the light of clear-cut versions
of the victim in unequivocal words that the victim P.W.5 had
willingly and voluntarily got married with the appellant and both
were living happily and harmoniously and established physical
relationship with each other and this case was instituted when the
victim solemnized second marriage and therefore, the offence u/s
3(1)(xii) of the S.C./S.T. Act is not proved at all and not
substantiated by the version of the victim P.W. 5 itself.
22. Further the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution
including P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and I.O. P.W.8 have categorically
stated that the case was instituted when the appellant has
solemnized another marriage. It is also found that on earlier
occasion initially learned trial court has framed charges for the
offence punishable u/s 376 of IPC and 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of S.C. &
S.T. Act,1989 but after trial the appellant has been convicted for the
offence punishable u/s 3(1)(xii) of the S.C./S.T. Act, which is also
bad in law in view of the appreciation and evaluation of the
testimonies of the witnesses including P.W. 5 as discussed above in
detail in the foregoing paragraphs and therefore the impugned
judgment of conviction dated 21.02.2007 and order of sentence dated
22.02.2007 passed by learned 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner-
cum-Spl. Judge, Ranchi is bad in law and perverse and fit to be set
aside.
23. In the backdrop the judgment of conviction dated 21.02.2007
9 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 238 of 2007
and order of sentence dated 22.02.2007 passed by learned 1st
Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-Spl. Judge, Ranchi for the
offence punishable u/s 3(1)(xii) of the SC & ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, in Sessions Trial No. 136/2005 in connection with
Sikidari P.S. Case No. 15/2004, corresponding to G.R. No.
1616/2004 Ranchi, Jharkhand against the appellant is set aside.
24. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
25. The appellant is acquitted from the charges levelled against
him. Since the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the
liabilities of bail bonds.
26. Let a copy of the judgment be sent to the learned court below
along with the Lower Court Records.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi,
Dated the 10.11.2022/NAFR
MM/-
