Jharkhand High Court
Samiullah @ Samiullah Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 624 of 2010
Samiullah @ Samiullah Ansari ... Petitioner
- Versus -
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
------
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
-----
For Petitioner : Mrs. Nanda Kumari, Amicus Curiae
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, A.P.P.
---
15/17.08.2023
Heard the parties.
The petitioner has filed this criminal revision application against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.02.2009, passed by
Sri Shiv Kumar Yadav, learned Additional District Judge-Ist, Lohardaga in
Criminal Appeal No.01 of 2002, whereby and wherein the learned
Additional District Judge-Ist, Lohardaga, dismissed the appeal of the
petitioner and upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 13.05.2002, passed by Sri Mrityunjay Mahto, learned Assistant
Sessions Judge, Lohardaga, in connection with S.T. No.196 of 1994
arising out of Kuru P.S. Case No.85 of 1993 in G.R. No.287 of 1993,
holding the petitioner guilty of offences under Sections 376/511 of the
Indian Penal Code and thereby sentencing him to undergo R.I. for five
years alongwith fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he was
further directed to undergo R.I. for six months. The fine amount if realised
was directed to be paid to the victim as compensation.
The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of fardbeyan of the
victim, who was student of Class-I of Jingi School, alleging therein that
on 23.08.1993, she was going to school alongwith other students. When
she reached near Baridih, the petitioner Samiullah @ Samiullah Ansari
intercepted her and took her inside a maize field and disrobed her, gagged
her mouth and put finger in her private part. In the meantime, on her
hullah several persons assembled there, on which Samiullah @ Samiullah
Ansari fled from the place of occurrence.
In order to prove its case, prosecution has adduced both oral and
documentary evidence. Both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned
Appellate Court have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of
the petitioner.
From the perusal of the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses,
it appears that victim has been examined as P.W.1. She has supported her
case as made out in her fardbeyan. She has stated that on 23.08.1993 at
about 10:00 am, she was going to school, when she reached near Baridih
village, the petitioner intercepted her and dragged her towards a maize
field, gagged her mouth and opened her pants, he also put his finger in her
private part, when she raised alarm several people from the locality
reached there, on which the petitioner fled away from the place of
occurrence. She has identified the petitioner in the dock. In her cross-
examination, she has stated that petitioner Samiullah @ Samiullah Ansari
was not the student of her class. She has stated that she did not know the
petitioner by his name rather she was told by somebody else that name of
the petitioner was Samiullah. She has stated that she was medical
examined at Kuru hospital .
Samir Tirkey P.W.3 has stated that two year ago at about 10:00 am,
he was going to Jingi school when he reached near maize field he saw the
petitioner Samiullah @ Samiullah Ansari dragging the victim towards a
maize field. He had seen blood on the clothes of the victim. The victim
told him that the petitioner dragged her and had raped her. He has
identified the petitioner in the dock. In his cross-examination, he has
stated that the petitioner had forcibly dragged the victim towards maize
field. He has stated that he did not raise alarm, but after sometime when
he realized that the victim was not following him, he returned to the place
of occurrence and saw the petitioner Samiullah @ Samiullah Ansari
fleeing from there.
Shankar Oraon P.W.4 is the father of the victim and Baso Orain
P.W.5 mother of the victim both have stated that on the date and time of
occurrence, her daughter had gone to school on the way the petitioner had
attempted to rape her. Both the witnesses are not the eye witness to the
occurrence.
Dr. Kiran Marandi P.W.7 is the doctor, who had examined the
victim. He found that the private part of the victim was inflamed and
blood oozed on touching her private part. He has opined that the age of
the victim was nine years and there was evidence of recent sexual activity.
Dr. Kameshwar Thakur P.W.8 had examined the petitioner, he has
stated that the petitioner was aged about 18 years, he had confessed before
this witness that he had inserted his private part inside the private part of
the victim.
From perusal of the medical report, which is Exhibit -2, it appears
that injury was found on the private part of the victim and there is specific
evidence of recent sexual assault on the victim.
From the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence, it is evident
that the victim has supported her case that she was sexually assaulted by
the petitioner. There is nothing in her cross-examination to doubt her
veracity. Samir Tirkey P.W.3 has also corroborated the statement of the
victim that he had seen the petitioner dragging the victim towards maize
field and subsequently after sometime when realized that the victim was
not following him he returned to the place of occurrence and saw the
petitioner fleeing from there. The oral testimony of these witnesses is
corroborated by the medical evidence, as the doctor has found injury on
the private part of the victim and has opined that she was subjected to
recent sexual assault.
In view of the aforesaid fact, I am of the opinion that prosecution
has been able to prove its case against the petitioner for attempted rape of
the victim and as such, both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned
Appellate Court have rightly come to a finding regarding the guilt of the
petitioner for offences under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code.
The sentence passed by the learned Court below does not require any
interference.
This Criminal Revision Application is dismissed.
Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
Before parting I would like to record my appreciation for Mrs.
Nanda Kumari, learned Amicus Curiae, who has very ably assisted this
Court in adjudicating this case. Member Secretary, JHALSA is directed to
pay Rs.5,000/- to the learned Amicus Curiae for the services rendered by
her.
(Ambuj Nath, J.)
Jay/-
