Shambhu Prasad @ Lallu vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 7609 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Shambhu Prasad @ Lallu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 August, 2024

Author: Ambuj Nath

Bench: Ambuj Nath

                       Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.766 of 2005
                                    ----------

[Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.05.2005 (sentenced passed on 25.05.2005) passed by Sri Prashant Kumar, learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara in connection with S.C. Case No. 75 of 2004, arising out of Jamtara (Mihijam) P.S. Case No. 15 of 2004, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 24 of 2004]

----------

Shambhu Prasad @ Lallu, Son of Bhagirath Prasad Singh, resident of village Nihijam Kurmi Para, P.S. Jamtara, District Jamtara.

... Appellant

-Versus-

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Savitri Devi ... Respondents

----------

    CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
                                    ----------
    For the Appellant          : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate
                                 Ms. Supriya Dayal, Advocate
    For the State              : Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, Spl.P.P
                                     ---------
CAV on : 03/05/2024                            Pronounced On : 02 /08/2024
          Heard the parties.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.05.2005 (sentenced passed on 25.05.2005) passed by Sri Prashant Kumar, learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara in connection with S.C. Case No. 75 of 2004, arising out of Jamtara (Mihijam) P.S. Case No. 15 of 2004, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 24 of 2004, holding the appellant, Shambhu Prasad @ Lallu, guilty of offences under Sections 376 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby, sentencing him to undergo R.I for seven years for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was further sentenced to undergo R.I for one year for the offence under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the written report of the informant, alleging therein that on 10.01.2004, her parents had gone to Madras. She was alone in her house with her younger brother. On 16.01.2004 at about 6:00 pm, her brother had gone to market

and she was watching television, in the meantime, the appellant Shambhu Prasad @ Lallu entered into her house, bolted the room from inside, disrobed her and raped her.

4. After the occurrence, she narrated the occurrence to her neighbors. Since her parents were not present at that time, this case was not instituted just after the occurrence.

5. The charge was framed against the appellant on 04.09.2004 under Sections 376 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. The contents of the charge was read over and explained to him in Hindi, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claiming to be tried.

6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence.

7. The statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The defence is general denial of the occurrence and false implication.

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

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

10. Draupadi Devi P.W.4 is the mother of the victim. She has stated that the victim is her daughter. She is a married lady. However, she is mentally disabled and her husband had deserted her. She has stated that about a year ago i.e. on 16.01.2004 at about 6:00 pm, she was not present at her house. She had gone to Tripuati alongwith her husband and her younger daughter. On 22nd January 2004 when she returned home, she came to know about the occurrence. Her daughter told her that Shambhu Prasad @ Lallu had entered into her house and raped her.

11. The victim has been examined as P.W.5. She has stated that on the date and time of the occurrence, she was present at her house and she was watching TV and the appellant came there, lifted her Saree and sexually assaulted her. She has stated that he had raped her. She has identified the appellant in the dock. She has further stated that at the time of the occurrence, her parents were not present. Her brother had gone to market. She informed her neighbors about the occurrence. When her parents

returned, this case was instituted. She has been cross-examined at length. In her cross examination, she has stated that she was sitting on a bed, at that time, she was wearing saree. The appellant came inside the room and caught hold of her from behind and gagged her mouth, due to which, she could not raised alarm. Thereafter, he raped her.

12. Pradip Kumar Jha P.W.6 is the brother of the victim. He has stated that the occurrence had taken place about one year ago. On 16.01.2004 between 6:00 pm to 6:30 pm, his parents were not present in their house. They had gone to Tripuati. While he had gone to market, his neighbors Niraj Thakur and D.K.Pandey met him and told him about the occurrence. When he returned home, his sister told him that Shambhu Prasad @ Lallu had raped her. In his cross-examination, he has stated that there are four tenants in his house namely D. K. Pandey, Ramanuj Singh, Ranjeet and Sharad. When he returned home, he found his sister sitting in the house of Pandey jee.

13. Niraj Kumar Thakur (P.W.3) has stated that on 16.01.2004 between 6:30 pm to 7:00 pm, he was present in his house. He saw the appellant entering her house. After some time, D. K. Pandey told him that Shambhu Prasad @ Lallu had raped the victim. He went to see the victim. She was crying and told him that Shambhu Prasad @ Lallu had raped her. He has identified the appellant in the dock. In his cross-examination, he has stated that at the time of occurrence, the parents of the victim were not present and accordingly, there is delay in lodging of the F.I.R.

14. Deo Kumar Pandey (P.W.1) is the tenant in the house of the victim. He has stated that on 16.01.2004 between 6:00 pm to 6:30 pm, he was present in his house. The victim came there crying and told him that Lallu had raped her. The parents of the victim were not present in their house. When they returned home, this case was instituted. He has been cross- examined at length. He has stated that the victim was a married lady, but her husband had deserted her. He has also stated that the victim narrated him about the occurrence in presence of his wife and the wife of A.K. Singh.

15. Sone Lal Jha (P.W.2) is the father of the victim. He has stated that on the date and time of the occurrence, he was not present in his house and when he returned home on 22.01.2004, he was informed about the

occurrence and thereafter, this case has been instituted.

16. Madhu Bala Sinha (P.W.7) is the doctor, who had examined the victim. She has stated that there was no mark of external injury and there was no sign of rape. The victim was examined on 27.01.2004. The doctor has assessed her age to be about 30 years. The occurrence had taken place on 16.01.2004. There is explanation for the delay in lodging of the F.I.R. and she medically examined the victim after ten days, which will naturally lead to the finding of no sign of rape.

17. Rajendra Prasad Singh (P.W.8) is the Investigating Officer of the case. He has proved the formal F.I.R, which is Exhibit-3. He has proved the place of occurrence which is the house of the victim. He has given the description of the place of occurrence. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the victim had told him that the appellant had raped her on the bed.

18. From the aforesaid oral evidence of the parties, it is apparent that the victim has fully supported her case as made out in the written report. Just after the occurrence, she has stated to her neighbors about the fact that the appellant had raped her. Niraj Kumar Thakur (P.W.3) had seen the appellant entering her house at about 7:00 pm. All these witnesses have been cross-examined at length. There is nothing in their cross-examination to doubt their veracity.

19. It is a fact that the doctor, who had examined the victim, had not found any sign of rape on her person. However, there is reasonable explanation for this finding. The occurrence had taken place on 16.01.2004 and the F.I.R was instituted on 25.01.2004. The victim was examined on 27.01.2004. However, the F.I.R could not be instituted within time as the parents of the victim were not present during that period. The delay in medical examination of the victim may be the reason that no sign of rape was found on her person.

20. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant for the offences under Sections 376 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubts.

21. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara does not require any interference.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

Pending I.A, if any, also stands disposed of.

(Ambuj Nath, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 02 August, 2024 BS/-