Jharkhand High Court
Chhotu Das vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 October, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1089 of 2018
.........
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 27.06.2018 and order of
sentence dated 28.06.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I,
West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in G.R. (POCSO) Case No.30 of 2014).
.........
Chhotu Das, S/o Late Anil Das, R/o Panchmore, Balaji Mandir Road,
Railway Quarter, P.O.+P.S.- Chakradharpur, District- West Singhbhum,
Jharkhand ..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Respondent
.........
For the Appellant : Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, AddI. Public Prosecutor
-----------
PRESENT
Sri Ananda Sen, J.
Sri Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.
JUDGMENT
11/ 17.10.2024
Since, the instant Criminal Appeal has been taken up for hearing,
as such, the instant interlocutory application filed under Section
389(1) Cr.P.C. stands dismissed.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1089 of 2018
2. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Ankit Kumar and
learned counsel for the State, Mr. Tarun Kumar, Additional Public
Prosecutor.
3. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the conviction of
the sole appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 6 of POCSO Act vide judgment of conviction dated 27.06.2018
and order of sentence dated 28.06.2018, whereby he has been
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life which means
imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life and fine of
Rs.20,000/-
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no
eye witness or independent witness to prove the prosecution case. He
further submits that the allegation of continuous rape has not been
supported by any medical evidence on record. He also submitted that
Doctor P.W-4 did not find injury on private part of the victim. The
Doctor opined that there was no visible sign of intercourse.
Investigating Officer of this case had not taken statement the victim's
brother, mother and grandmother as witnesses. He also submits that
the victim's statement Under Section 164 of Cr.P.C is contradictory to
the fardbeyan and her statement before the Trial Court. He further
submits that the victim's statement made Under Section 164 of Cr.P.C
was tutored by the victim's grand-mother. The mandatory
requirement of providing certificate before recording of the statement
was not adhered with. Hence, the learned counsel for the appellant
prays for acquittal of the appellant.
5. The learned counsel for the state has defended the impugned
conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. He
submits that there is no reason as to why a daughter would falsely
implicate her own step father in such heinous crime especially when
the victim is residing in the house of the appellant with her mother.
He further submits that there seems no reason to disbelieve or
discard the oral testimony of the prosecutrix. The learned counsel
defended the judgment by stating that the victim's testimony is
corroborated by the medical examination report prepared by P.W.-4,
which is a crucial piece of evidence. He further submits that the Trial
Court is correct in passing the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence which requires no interference.
6. The prosecution case based on the fardbeyan of the victim-
informant is that on 15.08.2014 at night the appellant and mother of
the victim were sleeping in a room, whereas the victim was sleeping
alone in another room. She stated that the appellant came in the room
of victim at about 11.00 O'clock and forcibly committed rape upon
her on the point of knife and threatened her not to disclose anything
about it. She further stated that after the incident the appellant
always used to establish physical relation with her, finding her alone
and he had burnt all the clothes of the victim. The victim could not
inform about it to anyone, due to fear. She further stated that on
27.08.2014 in the night, when the victim was sleeping in her room, the
appellant came in the room and tried to commit rape with her. The
victim protested the said attempt whereupon the appellant tied the
victim with her dupatta and thereafter, he disrobed her and insert the
finger in her vagina, thereafter he untied her. The victim told it to her
mother, but her mother did not respond. The victim could not inform
to anyone else due to shame. Her mother instead took her towards
Retire Colony for work from where the victim fled away and went to
the house of her grand-mother.
7. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan, FIR was registered being
Chakradharpur P.S. Case No.88 of 2014 under Sections 376 of the
Indian Penal Code and under Section 4/6 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act. The police after investigation
filed chargesheet under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 4/6 of the POCSO Act against this appellant.
8. Thereafter the Court took cognizance and committed the case to
the Court of Sessions. As the appellant pleaded not guilty, charge
was framed under Section 376 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act
and he was put on trial.
Seven witnesses have been examined in this case, who are as
follows:-
P.W.1- Somnath Rajak
P.W.2- The prosecutrix (name not disclosed)
P.W.3-Lucy Sosen Tigga
P.W.4-Dr. Asha Kripa Tuti
P.W.5-Sunil Das @ Sunil Sundi @ Sunil Tanti
P.W.6-Punam Kujur
P.W.7-Laliteshwar Choudhary
9. The following documents were also exhibited by the
prosecution:-
Exhibit-1: Signature of P.W.-2 on the fardbeyan.
Exhibit-2: Statement of P.W.-2 on the statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C.
Exhibit-3: Statement of prosecutrix (victim) U/s 164 Cr.P.C.
Exhibit-4: Medical examination report of the victim
Exhibit-5: Entire fardbeyan
Exhibit-6: Signature of Officer-in-charge on the formal F.I.R.
10. The Trial Court after completion of the prosecution evidence
examined this appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and after hearing
the parties, convicted the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act and sentence as aforesaid.
P.W.-1 is hearsay witness.
P.W.-2 is the informant/ prosecutrix herself. She stated that she
was sleeping in her house. She stated that her own father was Chhotu
Prasad, who had left her mother. Thereafter, her mother started to
reside with Chhotu Das, the appellant. She stated that her step father
Chhotu Das committed rape with her forcibly on the point of knife.
The appellant used to tie her with the window by dupatta and make
her fully naked and thereafter insert his fingers in her vagina. She
further stated she complained the aforesaid to her mother, but she paid
no heed. Thereafter, she ran to her grand-mother's house. She
identified her signature in the fardbeyan, which was marked as
Exhibit-1.
P.W.-3 stated that he has proved the statement of victim,
recorded by her under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in her writing and signature
which was marked as exhibit 3. In cross examination she stated that
she had not given any certificate regarding recording of the statement.
PW-4 is the Doctor who examined the victim. The medical report
was exhibited as Exhibit-4. The doctor found the following:-
(1)General Examination:- Built- Thin Teeth-Upper/lower-14/13,
Complexion - Dark, Height- 5 feet 2", Weight- 35 kg.
(2) Mark of identification:-
(i)Small mole over left side of cheek.
(ii)Small mole on the right side of nose
(3) Menstrual History:- Menarche not started as per her statement.
(4) Mark of violence:- No mark of violence on the body and private part.
(5) Secondary Sexual Character: - Breast Developed.
Axillary and public hair developed.
(6) P/V Examination:- Hymen old raptured, No congestion, introitus
admits one finger. Vaginal swab taken and send for histopathological
examination to the D.P.H. laboratory Sadar Hospital Chaibasa. According
to report given by M.O. incharge of pathology- No spermatozoa found dead
or alive.
(7) X-ray report given by Dr. Praveen Minz radiologist Sadar Hospital
Chaibasa- (i) X-rays pelvis- Secondary ossification centre of iliac crest are
not appeared. (ii) Elbow and wrist joint- Secondary ossification at lower
end of ulna and radius, Upper end ulna and radius and Lower end of
humerus are not fused.
The Doctor opined that according to physical pathological and
radiological examination, sexual intercourse took place and she is aged
about 13-14 years old.
P.W.-5 has been declared hostile.
P.W.-6 is the Investigating Officer. She identified the fardbeyan
and the writing and signature on the same and also the endorsement.
She also identified the Formal FIR. She has taken the re-statement of
the prosecutrix, who fully supported the incident and she sent the
prosecutrix to hospital for her medical examination along with her
grand-mother. She inspected the place of occurrence and gave a clear
picture of it. She also took statement of some witnesses. After
completion of the investigation, she submitted the charge sheet.
P.W.-7 proved the fardbeyan of the prosecutrix in his writing and
signature of the prosecutrix and thumb impression of Urmila Loharin
over it, which was marked as Exhibit-5.
11. After analyzing the evidence of the prosecution witness, we find
that the most important witnesses are the Doctor and the prosecutrix
herself. From the deposition of the prosecutrix, we find that she
categorically stated about the factum of rape by her step father. Her
evidence is clear and unambiguous. This witness has been cross
examined at length but we find that there is nothing in her cross-
examination to discredit her version in the examination-in-chief.
Further her statement has been corroborated by the medical evidence.
12. It is well settled that the testimony of the prosecutrix if found
reliable is sufficient to convict the accused. Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Ravindra v. State of M.P. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 491 at
para 4 has held as under-
"4. After considering the evidence adduced by the parties, the High Court was of the
view that it is well settled that the woman who is a victim of sexual assault is not an
accomplice to the crime. Her evidence cannot be tested with suspicion as that of an
accomplice. As a matter of fact her evidence is similar to the evidence of an injured
complainant or witness. The testimony of the prosecutrix, if found reliable by itself
may be sufficient to convict the culprit and no corroboration of her evidence is
necessary. Secondly, in prosecution of rape, the law does not require corroboration.
The evidence of the prosecutrix may sustain a conviction. It is only by way of
abundant caution that the court may look for some corroboration so as to satisfy its
conscience and rule out any false accusations. Thus, the High Court was of the view
that the trial court had not committed any error in convicting the appellant under
Section 376 IPC. The statement of the prosecutrix was reliable. Prompt FIR was
lodged by her and no further corroboration of her statement was required."
Further, from the deposition of the Doctor, we find that not only
he has assessed the age of the victim as 13 to 14 years, he also
categorically stated in his opinion that sexual intercourse took place.
Thus, we find that prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of
the appellant beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts and the Trial
Court has correctly appreciated all the evidence and convicted the
appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of
POCSO Act.
13. We find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the instant
Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. The judgment of conviction dated
27.06.2018 needs no interference.
14. So far as the sentence is concerned, in this case, punishment
imposed upon the appellant is life which as per the provision of law is
for rest of his natural life. The appellant was aged about 25 years at the
time of occurrence. If the sentence of 20 years is awarded, after
completion of 20 years, the appellant will lose his prime age. Thus,
considering the age of appellant, we modify the sentence of
imprisonment directing the appellant to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 20 years with a fine of Rs.20,000/-. In the
event, the fine is not paid, he will undergo S.I. for a period of two
months.
15. Let Trial Court Records along with a copy of this judgment be
sent to the concerned trial court forthwith.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated 17/10/2024
AFR /R.S./ Cp 03.
