Jharkhand High Court
(Against The Judgment Of ... vs Sekh Qumar on 3 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Acquittal Appeal No. 14 of 2012
------
(Against the judgment of acquittal dated 25th February 2012 passed by the
learned District & Sessions Judge-I, Dumka in Sessions Trial No. 378 of
2003)
------
State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, Dumka ...... Appellant
Versus
1. Sekh Qumar, son of Sekh Sobrati
2. Nazir Mian, son of Liyakat Mian
3. Ashraf Mian, son of Md. Mannan Mian
All residents of village- Baniyara Nichai Tola, PS Hansdiha,
District: Dumka. ..... Respondents
---------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, PP;
Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, APP
For the Respondents :
-------
Oral Order
rd
3 April 2023
Per, Shree Chandrashekhar,J.
Against the judgment dated 25th February 2012 passed in
Sessions Trial No. 378 of 2003 by which Sekh Qumar, Nazir Mian and
Ashraf Mian who are the respondents before this Court, the State of
Jharkhand has filed this Acquittal Appeal under section 378 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
2. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended
that the charge under section 376/511 and section 341 of the Indian Penal
Code can very well be proved on the basis of testimony of the victim girl.
3. To lay support to this contention, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, the
learned Public Prosecutor has referred to the evidence of the victim girl who
was examined as PW2.
4. In the Court, PW2 has stated that the accused persons caught
hold of her while she was returning from a village shop and tried to outrage
her modesty. However, on her raising hulla, Alamgir who is the brother-in-
law, Karim who is the uncle and Karuwa who is her cousin came there and
2 Acquittal Appeal (DB) No.14 of 2012
apprehended Ashraf Mian at the place of occurrence. She has further stated
that a panchayati was convened in the village which was however
unsuccessful and therefore a First Information Report vide Saraiyahat
(Hansdiha) PS Case No. 107 of 2002 was lodged under sections 341, 376
and 511/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. In the trial, the prosecution has examined six witnesses out of
whom PW 1 Md. Sajjad Ansari is the father, PW 3 Md. Alam and PW5
Md. Taufique are the co-villagers and PW 4 Nasima Bibi is mother of the
victim girl. PW3 and PW5 were tendered by the prosecution for
cross-examination by the defence. PW1 and PW4 are hearsay witnesses who
have deposed in the Court on the basis of the information given to them by
their daughter. However, the witnesses who arrived at the place of
occurrence which is near the house of Challu Mian were not produced in the
Court.
6. The learned trial Judge has held as under:
"9.On further scrutiny and analysis of the aforesaid evidences, I
further find that there is no eye witness of the occurrence. The
testimony of informant/victim is not trustworthy and reliable as
there are vital and important contradictions in her statement. The
evidence of PW 1 is not admissible in evidence as discussed
above. Further there is also contradiction in the evidence of PW 4
who is also a hearsay witness. Both hearsay witnesses such as PW
1 and PW 4 are mother and father of the victim/informant. No any
independent witnesses brought by the prosecution to support the
prosecution case. PW 3 and PW 5 have not stated anything about
the occurrence before this Court. Hence on the above facts and
evidences, I further find that the prosecution case seems highly
doubtful."
7. The above-named witnesses who rushed to the place of
occurrence and apprehended Ashraf Mian are also related witnesses but they
have chosen not to support the prosecution case. Not only that, even Challu
Mian or any other member of his family has not been examined during the
trial. No doubt, PW2 is the victim who has deposed in the Court that the
respondents caught hold of her, dragged her, closed her mouth and tried to
outrage her modesty. But, at the same time, she has admitted in the cross-
examination that the respondents are gotias who tried to take her away and,
therefore, she suspected that they would outrage her modesty. The defence
set up by the respondents is that a criminal case was lodged by them against
3 Acquittal Appeal (DB) No.14 of 2012
the family members of the victim girl, at whose instance they were falsely
implicated in this case.
8. The learned District & Sessions Judge-I, Dumka has on
appreciation of her evidence come to a finding that her statement in the
Court is contradictory.
9. In "Mahavir Singh v. State of M.P." (2016) 10 SCC 220 the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
"12. In the criminal jurisprudence, an accused is presumed to be
innocent till he is convicted by a competent court after a full-
fledged trial, and once the trial court by cogent reasoning acquits
the accused, then the reaffirmation of his innocence places more
burden on the appellate court while dealing with the appeal. No
doubt, it is settled law that there are no fetters on the power of the
appellate court to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence
both on facts and law upon which the order of acquittal is passed.
But the court has to be very cautious in interfering with an appeal
unless there are compelling and substantial grounds to interfere
with the order of acquittal. The appellate court while passing an
order has to give clear reasoning for such a conclusion."
10. In our opinion, the learned trial Judge has rightly found that the
prosecution has failed to prove the charge under sections 376/511 and 341 of
the Indian Penal Code against the respondents and, accordingly, Acquittal
Appeal No.14 of 2012 is dismissed.
11. Let the lower Court records be sent to the Court concerned
forthwith.
12. Let a copy of the judgment be transmitted to the Court
concerned through 'FAX'.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated: 3rd April, 2023
S.B./Nibha-N.A.F.R
