Bali Ram Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 2577 Jhar

                         Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 495 of 2013
                                         ---

Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.04.2013 passed by Shri Chandra Bhushan Singh, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sahibganj in S.C. Case No. 300 of 2012.

---

Bali Ram Mandal                       ---          ---          ---    Appellant
                                      Versus
The State of Jharkhand                ---          ---          ---    Respondent
                                         ---

For the Appellant: Mr. A.K. Sahani & Mr. Ashwini Kumar, Advocates For the State: Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl.P.P

---

PRESENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath

----

Reserved on: 31.01.2023                               Pronounced on: 3.08.2023
                                           ----

This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.04.2013, passed by Shri Chandra Bhushan Singh, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sahibganj in S.C. Case No. 300 of 2012 arising out of Sahibganj SC/ST P.S. Case No. 08/2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 520/2012, holding the petitioner guilty for the offence under section 376 (2) I.P.C and section 3(1) (X) of SC/ST Act and thereby sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under section 376(2) I.P.C. He was further sentenced to undergo R.I for one year along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under section 3(1) (X) of SC/ST Act. In default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo S.I for six months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. Prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the written report of the Informant Bharat Rajak, alleging therein that on 09.08.2012, he along with his wife and elder daughter had gone to Baijnath Dham. At about at about 12.00 in the night, the appellant Bali Ram Mandal entered his house and raped his minor daughter aged about 12 years. He was informed about the occurrence on the next day. He confronted the appellant on which he called him 'Dhobi' and told him to settle the matter and also threatened him with dire consequences if he reported the matter to the police.

3. After investigation, police found the occurrence to be true and submitted charge sheet against the appellant on 02.11.2012 under section 376(2) and 506 I.P.C and section 3(1) (X) of SC/ST Act. Cognizance was taken by the learned A.C.J.M., Rajmahal for the offences under the aforesaid sections. Case was committed to the court of sessions as it was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.

4. Charge was framed against the appellant on 06.02.2013 under sections 376(2) and 506 I.P.C and section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act. Contents of the charge was read over

and explained to the appellant in Hindi, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove its case, prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidences. Kalpana Kumari has been examined as P.W-1. She has supported the case of the prosecution. She has stated that she was sleeping with the victim at the time of occurrence. Victim has been examined as P.W-2. She has also supported the case of the prosecution. She has given contesting evidence in the court. Manjula Rajak has been examined as P.W-3. She is the mother of the victim. She is a hearsay witness. Informant Bharat Rajak has been examined as P.W-4. He is also a hearsay witness. Malti Devi (P.W-5) is neighbor who reached at the place of occurrence after coming to know about the occurrence. She is also a hearsay witness. Puja Kumari (P.W-6) is a minor who was sleeping with the victim at the time of occurrence. Parwati Devi (P.W-

7) and Sudhir Mandal (P.W-8) are hearsay witnesses. Vijay Ashish Kujur (P.W-9) is the Investigating Officer who had submitted charge sheet in this case. Dr. Bharti Puspam (P.W-10) is the doctor who had examined the victim girl. She has proved the medical report which has been marked as Ext.2.

6. Appellant has also adduced both oral and documentary evidence in support of his case. Appellant has adduced certified copy of the FIR of Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 134/1997, which has been marked as Ext. A. Copy of charge sheet of the aforesaid case is Ext.-B and the judgment passed in the aforesaid case appertaining to S.C. Case No. 230/03 has been marked as Ext. C.

7. On the basis of the evidence - both oral and documentary - available on the record, learned Trial Court held the appellant guilty and sentenced him accordingly.

8. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case due to previous enmity. It was further submitted that the Investigating Officer who had investigated this case, has not been examined, which has caused serious prejudice to the case of the appellant. On this ground, it was prayed that this appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted of the charges.

9. Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned Special P.P, submitted that the victim and other minor girls who were sleeping together with the victim, have supported the case of the prosecution that the appellant had raped the victim. In fact, these witnesses had also stated that they had seen blood stains on the clothes of the victim after the occurrence. It was finally submitted that oral account of the prosecution witnesses is corroborated by the medical evidence. On this ground, it was prayed that this appeal may be dismissed.

10. Now, it has to be ascertained, whether prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts.

Case of the prosecution is that in the night of 09.08.2012, appellant had entered into the house of the Informant and raped his minor daughter aged about 12 years. It is further case of the prosecution that when the Informant confronted the appellant, he called him 'Dhobi' and threatened him with dire consequences if he reported the matter to the police.

11. Victim has been examined as P.W-2. She was examined on 13.02.2013. She has stated that the occurrence took place six months ago. She was sleeping in the verandah of her house along with her friend Kalpana Kumari and Puja Kumari (P.Ws-1 & 6). Her parents had gone to Deoghar. The appellant Bali Ram Mandal came to the verandah. He could identify her in the light of lantern. She has stated that the appellant Bali Ram Mandal raped her. She started bleeding, due to which, her undergarment was stained with blood. She tried to raise alarm but he gagged her mouth. She has stated that the girls who were sleeping with her, had seen the occurrence and her aunt arrived after hulla. She has been cross-examined at length. At para-6, she has stated that she did not raise alarm as the appellant had gagged her mouth. She raised alarm after Bali Ram Mandal escaped from there. She has denied that there was previous enmity between the appellant Bali Ram Mandal and her father.

12. Kalpana Kumari (P.W-1) and Puja Kumari (P.W-6) are two minor girls who were sleeping with the victim at the time of occurrence. Both of them have supported the case of the victim and have stated that they were sleeping with the victim in her verandah when the appellant Bali Ram Mandal came there and raped her. Bali Ram Mandal had threatened both these witnesses of dire consequences, if they raise alarm. There is nothing in their cross-examination to doubt their veracity.

13. Malti Devi (P.W-5) is a hearsay witness. She has stated that when she came to know about the occurrence, she went to see the victim. She found that blood was oozing out from her private part. She has not been cross-examined on the point that she saw the victim bleeding. Manjula Rajak (P.W-3) is the mother of the victim. She has stated that on the date of occurrence, she had gone to Deoghar with her husband and some of her family members. When she returned on the next day, she came to know that Bali Ram Mandal had raped her minor daughter. She is a hearsay witness, but she has stated in her cross-examination that she saw blood stained clothes of the victim. There were mark of semen on her clothes. She has also stated that prior to this occurrence, Bali Ram Mandal had raped her sister-in-law.

14. Bharat Rajak (P.W-4) is the Informant of this case. He has supported his case as made out in the written report. He has stated that on the date of occurrence, he had

gone to Deoghar. When he returned on the next day, he came to know that Bali Ram Mandal had raped his minor daughter. He confronted Bali Ram Mandal, on which he told him that he should not go to the police station and the matter should be settled at the local level. He further stated that Panchayat was held in which he was offered Rs. 70,000/- to suppress the matter, but he did not agree and instituted this case.

15. Dr. Bharti Puspam (P.W-10) is the doctor who had examined the victim girl and found the following injuries:

'Hymen was found to be ruptured. There was reddish ting on the lower margin of the ruptured hymen which suggested recent injury.

She has proved the medical report (Ext.2). In her cross- examination, she has stated that hymen can be ruptured due to high jump, long jump and cycling."

On perusal of the medical report (Ext.2), it appears that the finding of the doctor (P.W-10) in the medical report regarding the injury sustained by the victim, fully stands corroborated by her oral testimony in the court recorded during trial.

16. From perusal of the documentary evidence adduced by the defence, it appears that one Anjula Devi, wife of the brother of the Informant, had instituted a case under section 376 I.P.C against the appellant, but she did not support her case during the trial. Accordingly, the appellant was acquitted of the charge.

17. From the aforesaid oral and documentary evidences, it is apparent that the victim (P.W-2) has fully supported the fact that the appellant had entered into her house and raped her. Witnesses Kalpana Kumari (P.W-1) and Puja Kumari (P.W-6) who were sleeping with the victim at the place of occurrence, have supported the case of the prosecution that the appellant had raped the victim. They had seen the appellant committing rape. They are girls of very tender age. They have stated that the appellant threatened them of dire consequences if they raised alarm, due to which, they did not raise alarm. Manjula Rajak (P.W-3) is a hearsay witness, but she saw blood stained clothes of the victim after the occurrence. Malti Devi (P.W-5) is also a hearsay witness, but after the occurrence, she saw blood oozing out from the private part of the victim. Ocular account of these witnesses stands corroborated by the medical evidence. Hymen of the victim was found to be ruptured and there was injury on her private part.

18. Defence evidence adduced by the appellant is of no consequence, though the appellant who was charged for committing rape upon one Anjula Devi, sister-in-law of the Informant, was acquitted of the charge because the said Anjula Devi had turned hostile. There is nothing in the defence evidence to suggest that there was previous enmity between the Informant and the appellant, due to which, he has been falsely implicated in this case.

19. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant for committing rape upon the minor daughter of the Informant who is member of the scheduled caste community. Learned Trial Court has rightly held the appellant guilty for the offences under section 376 I.P.C and section 3(1) (X) of SC/ST Act. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court does not require any interference.

20. This appeal is dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) (Ambuj Nath, J)

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 3 August 2023 Ranjeet/