Jharkhand High Court
Lorentus Minz Son Of Late Simon Minz ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 October, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1758 of 2017
[Arising out of judgment of conviction dated 26.08.2017 and order of sentence
dated 30.08.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Simdega in Sessions
Trial No. 11 of 2012]
Lorentus Minz son of Late Simon Minz resident of Village Bahrinbasa, P.O.
and P.S. Bolba, District Simdega .... .... .... Appellant
--Versus--
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
For the Appellant: Mr. Zaid Ahmad, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P.
-----
PRESENT: SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
-----
JUDGMENT
Dated 16th October, 2024
By Court Sole appellant is before this Court in appeal against the judgment of
conviction and sentence passed under Section 376D of the IPC.
2. Mother of the victim is the informant of the case. As per the FIR, victim
was mentally retarded and a dumb girl aged about 20 years. She could somehow
communicate by barely stammering. She noticed that her menstrual period had
stopped for 4-5 months and there was also change in her body. Consequently,
she enquired from her to which she disclosed that appellant and one Rohit Xess
had established physical relationship with her as a result of which she became
pregnant. Matter was initially referred to the Village Panchayat, but could not
be settled there.
3. On the basis of the written report, Bolba P.S. Case No. 14/11 was
registered against the appellant and Rohit under Section 376 of the IPC. Police
on investigation, found the case true and charge sheet was submitted against
both of them. Later, Rohit Xess was declared juvenile and his trial was
separated. Altogether ten witnesses have been examined on behalf of the
prosecution and relevant documents including medico legal examination report
has been adduced into evidence and marked as exhibit.
4. After prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant under Section
313 of the Cr.P.C. has been recorded. The defence is of innocence. Defence has
adduced into evidence the certified copy of the enquiry order passed in E.R.
No.50/12 wherein Rohit Xess has been held to be in conflict with law under
Section 376 of the IPC by the Juvenile Justice Board. Exhibit B is the FSL report
according to which the paternal alleles of the blood of baby of victim did not
match with the blood of Lorentus Minz (appellant).
5. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant that the FSL
report discounts the complicity of this appellant in the crime.
6. It is consistent case of prosecution that one Rohit Xess was involved in
the incidence, who has been held to be juvenile in conflict with law by the
Juvenile Justice Board.
7. As far as this appellant is concerned, out of eight material witnesses, P.W.
1, P.W. 5, P.W. 6 and P.W. who are all co-villagers, have not at all supported the
prosecution case and were declared hostile. There are material contradictions in
the deposition of victim and therefore, it will not be safe to rely on her
uncorroborated testimony.
8. Learned A.P.P. has defended the judgment of conviction and sentence.
9. Law is settled that a judgment of conviction and sentence in sexual assault
case can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim, provided it is
cogent, reliable and trustworthy. The testimony of a victim is to be dealt at par
with an injured witness and considering the nature of offence, which is normally
committed in secrecy, there cannot be logically any corroborative evidence.
10. In the present case, the victim has been examined as P.W. 3, who has
stated in para 4 that appellant was the father of her child and in para 6, she has
deposed that he has committed rape with her. Part of her testimony is falsified
in view of the FSL report as discussed above. She has further stated that Rohit
Xess has also committed rape with her. P.W. 8 has deposed in para 2 that victim
girl was not completely dumb and has also deposed that her mental condition
was normal. The Doctor (P.W. 9) who medically examined the victim, has not
recorded any observation regarding the mental status of the victim. However,
the Court while examining the victim (P.W. 3) has noted that she was not in a
normal mental state.
11. On the combined reading of the testimony of witnesses, we are of the
view that the testimony of the victim girl cannot be discarded only for the reason
that the FSL report, did not establish appellant to have fathered the child of the
victim. The victim girl although partly dumb, has specifically pointed to the
appellant that he had also committed rape with her. However, in absence of any
definite evidence of date, time and place of occurrence, it cannot be said that
rape was conjointly committed by this appellant along with any other co-
accused. As a matter of fact, the charge of gang rape has not been framed. The
incidence took place before 2013 and therefore, charge under Section 376D of
the IPC which was subsequently framed, will not be applicable. Appellant can
only be held guilty for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC.
12. Considering the overall facts and circumstance of the case, age and
antecedent of the appellant, a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years
and a fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 376 of the IPC shall meet the ends of
justice. In default of payment of fine, appellant to undergo simple imprisonment
of one month.
With this modification in finding and sentence, the Criminal Appeal
stands dismissed.
Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.
Let the Trial Court Records be transmitted to the Court concerned along
with a copy of this judgment.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated, 16th October, 2024
AFR/Anit
