Jharkhand High Court
Murhu Samad @ Raghunath Samad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 May, 2024
Author: Ambuj Nath
Bench: Ambuj Nath
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1192 of 2005
---
Against the judgment of conviction dated 27.03.2004 (sentence passed on 02.04.2004)
passed by Shri D.G.R. Patnaik, learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa
(As His Lordship was then) in Sessions Trial No. 75 of 2003.
---
Murhu Samad @ Raghunath Samad --- --- --- Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- --- Respondent
---
For the Appellant: Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, Amicus Curiae
For the Resp.-State: Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, A.P.P
---
PRESENT
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath
---
By court: This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 27.03.2004
(sentence passed on 02.04.2004) passed by Shri D.G.R. Patnaik, learned Sessions
Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa (As His Lordship was then) in Sessions Trial No.
75 of 2003 arising out of Muffasil Chaibasa P.S. Case No. 82 of 2002 corresponding
to G.R. No. 300 of 2002, holding the appellant guilty for the offence under section
376 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby sentencing him to undergo R.I for seven
years along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was further
directed to undergo R.I for four months.
2. Prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the First Information Report
lodged by the Informant alleging therein that on 05.08.2002 at about 8.00 a.m., she
had gone to the house of her friend Sukhmati. While she was present there, the
appellant came there and dragged her to a nearby room and raped her. Appellant
threatened her of dire consequences, if she reported the matter to anyone. She has
further stated that Panchayati was held but the appellant did not confess his guilt
before the Panchayat and thereafter, this case was instituted.
3. Charge was framed under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Charge was
read over and explained to the appellant in Hindi, to which he pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary
evidences. On the basis of materials available on the record, learned Trial Court held
the appellant guilty and sentenced him accordingly.
5. Prosecutrix has been examined as P.W-1. She has supported the allegation as
made out in the First Information Report. She has stated that occurrence took place
one year ago when she had gone to the house of her friend Sukhmati. While she was
present there, the appellant came there and dragged her to a nearby room and raped
her. When she tried to raise alarm, appellant threatened her of dire consequences.
Thereafter, Panchayat summoned the appellant, but he did not confess his guilt in the
Panchayat. Thereafter, this case has been instituted.
She has been cross-examined at length. In her cross-examination, she has stated
that at the time of occurrence, her parents were not present there as they had gone to
nearby forest. She has further stated that she has reported the matter to the local
Panchayat in writing.
Pandit Deogam (P.W-2) is the father of the victim. He has stated that on the
date and time of occurrence, he was not present there. When he returned home, his
daughter told him about the occurrence. He is not an eyewitness to the occurrence, but
he has stated that Panchayati was held but the appellant did not confess his guilt.
Thereafter, this case has been instituted.
Madhusudan Deogam (P.W-5) has supported the prosecution case. He has
stated that the entire occurrence has taken place in his house. He has stated that at the
time of occurrence, he was not present. When he returned home, he came to know
from his wife that the appellant has raped the prosecutrix.
Dr. Bela Rose Ekka (P.W-6) has examined the victim. She has stated that
hymen of the victim was ruptured with ragged edges. There was swelling and
tenderness was present. In her cross-examination, she has stated that hymen may be
ruptured due to several reasons, but in the instant case, considering the raggedness and
swelling of the edges, the rupture of edges was due to forcible sexual intercourse. She
has proved the medical report as Ext.-1
Naresh Prasad (P.W-8) is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has proved
the place of occurrence which happens to be the house of Madhusudan Deogam (P.W-
5). He has also stated that he has not obtained the medical report from the hospital.
6. From perusal of the medical report (Ext.-1), it appears that the findings in the
medical report given by Dr. Bela Rose Ekka (P.W-6) fully corroborate her ocular
account made during the trial in the court.
7. Victim has categorically stated that the appellant has raped her. She has been
cross-examined at length and there is nothing on the record to doubt her veracity.
Ocular account of the victim is corroborated by the findings in the medical report.
Hymen was found ruptured. As per the doctor, hymen was ruptured due to forceful
sexual intercourse.
8. Considering the entire facts of this case, it is apparent that the prosecution has
been able to prove its case against the appellant for the offence under section 376 of
the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt. Learned Trial Court has rightly
held the appellant guilty.
9. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. The judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by the learned Trial Court does not require any interference.
Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. He is directed to be taken into
custody forthwith to serve out the remaining sentence.
Pending I.A (s), if any, stands disposed.
10. Before parting, I would like to record my appreciation for the valuable
assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae during the course of hearing of this
criminal appeal. Accordingly, Member Secretary, JHALSA is directed to pay Rs.
7,000/- to Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, by way of remuneration, for his assistance
rendered as an Amicus Curiae in this case.
(Ambuj Nath, J)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated 6th May 2024
Ranjeet/
