Jharkhand High Court
Chunka Soren vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 May, 2024
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.43 of 2020
(Against the Judgment of conviction dated 17.08.2019, and order of sentence dated
26.08.2019 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Pakur, in S.T. No.52 of 2017
[arising out of Maheshpur P.S. Case No.264 of 2013 and G.R. No.1082 of 2013].
Chunka Soren .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Appellant : Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate
For the State : APP
.....
By Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP for the
State.
1. The instant Criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated
17.08.2019, and order of sentence dated 26.08.2019 passed by learned Addl.
Sessions Judge-I, Pakur, in S.T. No.52 of 2017 [arising out of Maheshpur P.S.
Case No.264 of 2013 and G.R. No.1082 of 2013]whereby the sole appellant has
been convicted for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced him to undergo RI for 7 years and fine of Rs 5000/- and in default of
payment of fine, further to undergo RI for 2months.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20.07.2013 at about 11 p.m, it is alleged
that when the prosecutrix was lying on her bed, all of a sudden, the appellant
entered into the house with a knife and warned her not to make noise or else she
will suffer dire consequence. The appellant taking advantage of the situation i.e
absence of her husband in the house, caught hold of the prosecutrix and
forcefully committed rape with her. Thereafter appellant asked for the key of box.
Then the prosecutrix handed over the keys and appellant took out purse
containing gold necklace and cash of Rs 4500/- from the box. Thereafter
prosecutix started shouting and by hearing the noise, people of the locality
reached at the place of occurrence & saw the appellant running away from there.
It further revealed that the complainant contacted the Police State, but her
complaint was not entertained. Hence, PCR No.393 of 2013 under Sections 376,
379 and 450 IPC was registered.
3. On the basis of the PCR No.393 of 2013, the Police instituted First Information
Report being Maheshpur (Pakur) P.S. Case No. 264 of 2013) corresponding to
G.R. No.1082 of 2013 under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code against the
sole appellant/accused.
4. Police after investigation found the case to be true and submitted charge-sheet
and after cognizance, the accused person/ appellant was put on trial.
5. Altogether six witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution and
relevant documents have been adduced into evidence and marked as Exhibits.
6. After prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused person has been
recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C.which is of innocence and false implication.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the complaint filed by the
prosecutrix is the basis of the case. There is an inordinate delay of 10 days in
filing the complaint petition. As per the allegation, the incidence took place on
20.07.2013, whereas the complaint was filed on 30.07.2013.
8. It is submitted that in this case, altogether four material witnesses have been
examined, out of which, P.W.3 and P.W.5, being independent witnesses have not
at all supported the case of prosecution and were declared hostile. The
prosecution case rests upon the testimony of prosecutrix and her husband. It has
been stated in the complaint/FIR that on hulla being raised, several people of the
locality reached the spot and saw the appellant running away from the place of
occurrence. However, the prosecutrix at Para-1 has deposed that the offence was
committed under threat and duress and she was not permitted to raise any alarm.
However, at Para-3, she has deposed that at the time of incidence, no one had
come there.
9. It is further submitted that it has been deposed by the prosecutrix and her husband
that panchayati was held after the said incidence, but there is no evidence of
panchayati being held subsequent to the said incidence. The prosecutrix was not
examined by the Doctor after the incidence rather after about 7 months, she has
been examined, but the Doctor immediately did not find any mark of violence.
10. It is submitted that as per the FIR, the appellant had committed the theft of gold
ear-ring, but in her deposition, she has deposed that she has lost her ear-ring.
11. Learned APP for the State has defended the impugned judgment of conviction
and sentence.
12. I find force in the argument advanced on behalf of the defence/appellant that this
case is riddled with improbabilities, and contradictions to place an unflinching
reliance on the solitary account of the prosecutrix. It begins with delay in lodging
of FIR and then there is contradiction in the account as to whether she raised any
alarm or not, and if she raised alarm as stated in the FIR, who came to her rescue.
In view of the vital contradictions in the deposition of the prosecutrix, this Court
is of the view that the uncorroborated solitary testimony of prosecutrix will not
be sufficient to return a judgment of conviction and sentence. As such, the
appellant is entitled to get benefit of doubt.
Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set
aside and the sureties are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.
The instant Criminal Appeal is allowed.
Let L.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court
concerned at once.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated 03.05.2024.
sandeep/
