Sunil Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 5671 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Sunil Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 June, 2024

Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

                        Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 223 of 2011

           [Against the judgment of conviction dated 27.01.2011 and order of sentence
           dated02.02.2011 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner F.T.C.-
           VIII, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 789 of 2009]

           Sunil Mahto                       ....    ....   ....   Appellant
                                          --Versus--
           The State of Jharkhand             .... ....         .... Respondent

           For the Appellant           : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate
                                       : Mr. Mohammad Asghar, Amicus Curiae
           For the State               : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P.
                                       -----

PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

By Court

1. Instant Criminal Appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence under Sections 354 and 456 of the I.P.C. passed in Sessions Trial No. 789 of 2009 by Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court-VIII, Ranchi.

2. As per the F.I.R. lodged by the prosecutrix, on 01.06.2009 in the night of 30.05.2009, she was sleeping at her home and her husband had gone outside in connection with some work. At about 12 O'clock, her co-villager Sunil Mahto entered into the house and attempted to commit rape with her. When she raised hulla then he fled away.

3. On the basis of the written report, Sonahatu (R) P.S. case No. 29/09 was registered under Sections 452, 354, 323 of Indian Penal Code. Police on investigation found the case true and submitted charge sheet. After cognizance, charge was framed under these Sections and accused was put on trial.

4. Judgment of conviction and sentence has been assailed on the ground that out of total ten witnesses examined on the behalf of the prosecution, six of the witnesses turned hostile and have not at all supported the prosecution case.

5. There are vital contradictions in the deposition of the prosecutrix P.W.-4 and her father P.W.-9 and the entire prosecution case rests on the solitary account of the prosecutrix. I.O. has not been examined and therefore, the

defence has been prejudiced. The Mukhiya of the village has been examined as P.W.-1 and he deposed that on 30.05.2009 the victim had given her letter alleging that a robbery was committed in the house. These witnesses however been declared hostile by the Court on the prayer of the prosecution.

6. As per the deposition of the P.W.-4, it was Aghni Devi (P.W.-2) who had come immediately after the incidence, but she has also not supported the prosecution case. On the point of sentence, it is submitted that the maximum sentence under Section 354 IPC before the 2013 amendment was imprisonment of two years. The appellant is the poor young man and there is no past conviction against him and therefore, he is entitled to leniency on the point of sentence.

7. Learned A.P.P. has defended the judgment of conviction and sentence. It is submitted that in sexual assault case, the solitary account of prosecutrix is sufficient for conviction of an accused.

8. The F.I.R. was lodged immediately after the incidence and prosecutrix has given a cogent account.

9. Having considered the submission advanced on both sides and considering the materials on record matter for consideration is whether the judgment of conviction is sustainable on the solitary account of the prosecutrix. It is settled position of law that if the testimony of the prosecutrix is cogent, reliable and trustworthy, it can serve as a sole basis of conviction.

10. Matter for consideration before this Court is whether there is any circumstance which can cast cloud over the credibility on her account. Although, it has been argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant that there was an enmity which have been admitted by the prosecutrix in her cross-examination, but there is no further detail regarding the enmity between the parties. No suggestion has been given to the witnesses on this line and this line of defence has not come up in the statement of accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.

11. Under the circumstance, mere stray remark of the prosecutrix that there had been some past enmity, by itself is not sufficient to discard the entire testimony of the victim.

12. FIR was lodged without any delay and the prosecutrix has given a consistent account of the incidence in which the appellant had barged into her

house and tried to molest her and on alarm being raised, he fled away. This witness has not been confronted with the written report or her reinstatement, so as to elicit any contradiction. There is no other material from which an inference of false implication or falsity in her account can be drawn. I do not see any reason to disbelieve the prosecutrix, and her uncorroborated testimony can be relied in the facts and circumstance of the Case. In this view of matter, there is no illegality in the conviction of the accused under sections 354 and 456 of the IPC.

13. On the point of sentence, considering the age and antecedent of the appellant a sentence of one year RI both under Section 354 and 456 of the IPC shall meet the ends of justice. Sentences to run concurrently.

With this modification in sentence, appeal stands dismissed.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, 12th June, 2024 AFR/Anit