Huro Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 222 Jhar

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 222 Jhar
Judgement Date : 10 January, 2024

Jharkhand High Court

Huro Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 January, 2024

Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 59 of 2012
                                   ------

1. Huro Mahto

2. Diwakar Mahto .... .... .... Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Appellants : Mr. S.P. Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Naveen Kumar Ganjhu, A.P.P.

------

Order No.08 / Dated : 10.01.2024

1. Instant appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.12.2011 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Godda in Special Case No.24 of 2010 whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted under Sections 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(xi) of the Scheduled Cast/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

2. The case of prosecution, as set out in the written report lodged by Manti Devi on 28.09.1999 is that the appellants conjointly assaulted him and attempted to commit rape with her. On alarm being raised, the villagers gathered there and rescued her.

3. On the basis of written report, Poraiyahat P.S. Case No.132 of 1999 was registered under Sections 379, 376/ 511/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The police, on investigation, found the case true and submitted charge sheet.

4. The accused persons were put on trial under Sections 376/511, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(xi) of the Scheduled Cast/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and all the three witnesses including the informant were turned hostile.

4. Very surprisingly, even thereafter, the learned trial Court has returned the judgment of conviction and sentence on the ground that the prosecutrix had tried to screen the appellants.

5. The question that falls for consideration before this Court is that the Court can substitute its own opinion supported by oral or documentary evidence? The answer can be an emphatic No. Judgment of conviction and sentence is perverse, unsupported by any evidence and is therefore set aside.

Appeal is allowed.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit