Jharkhand High Court
Prakash Kisku @ Mota vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 October, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.1211 of 2016
------
(Arising out of judgment of conviction dated 23.06.2016
and order of sentence dated 24.06.2016 passed by Learned
Additional Sessions Judge-II-F.T.C., Bokaro, in S.T. Case
No.114 of 2014)
------
Prakash Kisku @ Mota, son of Karma Manjhi, resident of Village
Jilmu Bera, P.O. + P.S. Dugda, District Bokaro (Jharkhand).
... ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ... ... ... Respondent
------
PRESENT : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
: SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Mayank Mohit Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl. P.P.
------
JUDGMENT
By Court, :
23rd October, 2024
This Criminal Appeal is preferred on behalf of the
appellant being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated
23.06.2016 and order of sentence dated 24.06.2016 passed by
Learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-F.T.C., Bokaro, in S.T. Case
No.114 of 2014, whereby and wherein the appellant has been
convicted for offence under Section 376(1) I.P.C. He was
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with
fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 376(1) I.P.C.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
counsel for the State and perused the material available on
record.
3. Learned counsel representing the appellant submits
that the victim is a major and is a consenting party to the
physical relationship. He states that just because the marriage
was not being solemnized as per the wish of the victim, the case
has been instituted against the appellant. It has been further
argued that evidence of the victim has not been appreciated
properly by the Trial Court and wrongly this appellant has been
convicted in this case. As per learned counsel, the Doctor did not
find any mark of assault on the body of this appellant to suggest
that she was sexually assaulted.
4. Learned A.P.P. representing the State submits that
from the evidence of the victim, it is clear that there is physical
assault upon the victim. Even if the victim is major, there is
nothing to suggest that she was a consenting party to the
physical relationship. The act of rape is substantiated by the
medical evidence of the Doctor, who also found several injuries on
the private part of the victim.
5. The crux of the case is that an F.I.R. on the basis of
fardbeyan of the prosecutrix/informant came to be lodged stating
therein that she met with one Prakash Kisku @ Mota (appellant),
and she became acquainted with him and they kept meeting
regularly. She stated that one day before her fardbeyan i.e.
07.04.2014, the appellant called her on phone to meet near
Station and when she went to the Station and met the appellant,
the appellant near the Station had forcibly made physical
relations with her by making her lie on the ground without her
consent. Thereafter the appellant threatened her not to tell
anybody about the incident. When she anyhow came to her house
then looking at her condition, her brother, sister and villagers
took her for treatment.
6. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the prosecutrix, F.I.R.
being Balidih P.S. Case No.270 of 2014 was instituted under
Section 376 IPC and the investigation was conducted. The
charge-sheet was submitted under Section 376 IPC. Cognizance
of the offence was taken by learned Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro,
who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, which was later
on transferred to the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-F.T.C.,
Bokaro.
7. To prove the prosecution case, altogether eight
prosecution witnesses have been examined, namely:-
i. P.W.-1 :- Sunil Besera
ii. P.W.-2 :- Prosecutrix / informant
iii. P.W.-3 :- Jeet Ram Besera
iv. P.W.-4 :- Sahodari Devi
v. P.W.-5 :- Hari @ Kurimati
vi. P.W.-6 :- Sunita Kumari
vii. P.W.-7 :- Dr. Jaya Agrawal
viii. P.W.-8 :- Budhram Oraon
8. P.W.-1 namely Sunil Besera, is the brother of the deceased.
He deposed that the appellant has committed rape upon her sister by
calling her sister near Tupkadih Railway Station.
P.W.-2 is the prosecutrix/ informant. She deposed that the
appellant called her on phone to meet near tupkadih Railway
Station and when she reached the Station and met the appellant,
the appellant took her near a bush and had forcibly committed
rape upon her. Thereafter, when she came to her house, looking
to her condition, her family members asked as to what has
happened, to which she told about the incident. Then her family
members took her for treatment.
P.W.-3 namely Jeet Ram Besera, is the brother of the
prosecutrix. He stated that he came to know that the appellant has
committed rape upon her sister. The condition of his sister was critical.
They took his sister to hospital for treatment.
P.W.-4 namely Sahodari Devi, is the relative and villager of
the prosecutrix. She stated that the appellant committed rape upon the
prosecutrix due to which she got injured and was taken to hospital.
P.W.-5 namely Hari @ Kurimati, is the mother of the
prosecutrix. She deposed that rape has been committed upon her
daughter. When her daughter came to home, she narrated the incident.
Her condition was very critical, thus, she was taken to the hospital. She
identified the appellant in Court.
P.W.-6 namely Sunita Kumari, is the sister of the
prosecutrix. She stated that the appellant has committed rape upon
her sister by calling her at Tupkadih Railway Station. The condition of
her sister was not well and she was taken to hospital for treatment.
She stated that the prosecutrix told her about the incident. She
identified the appellant in Court.
P.W.-7 namely Dr. Jaya Agrawal, deposed that she was the
assisting Doctor to Dr. Arun Kumar Dora, who examined the
prosecutrix in her presence. Following findings were made:-
i. The clothes were soiled with blood. No obvious seminal
stain could be identified. There was no external injury
or bruises on body surfaces including breast and anal
region.
ii. There was presence of blood clots around introitus. Few
pubic hairs which were not shaved earlier were
collected. Swabs taken from vaginal perineal area and
cloths..
iii. There was presence of blood clots around hymen. There
were already two catgut (thread) stitches at hymen.
iv. There was a tear (lacerated wound) of vaginal mucosa
& underlying tissue extending from posterior forensic to
right lateral vaginal wall of size approximately 6 cm.
The Doctor opined that the injury stated above can be
caused by hard and blunt object, may be due to sexual
intercourse also. The injury report was marked as Ext.2.
P.W.-8 namely Budhram Orawn, is the Investigating
Officer. He deposed that he recorded fardbeyan of the
prosecutrix. He forwarded the fardbeyan. He inspected the place
of occurrence which is situated near Tupkadih Station. He also
obtained the medical report of the prosecutrix.
9. Several documentary evidence has also been produced
which are as follows:-
i. Ext.1 :- Fardbayan of informant
ii. Ext.2 :- Injury report
iii. Ext.3 :- Forwarding of fardbayan to Baldih Police
Station
iv. Ext.3/1 :- Endorsement of OC, P.S.-Balidih on
fardbayan
v. Ext.4 :- Formal F.I.R.
vi. Ext.5 :- Report of medical board regarding age of
victim
10. After analysing 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 the appellant. 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.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravindra v.
State of M.P. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 491, in para-4 has held
as hereunder:-
"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."
12. The critical condition of the prosecutrix due to the
sexual assault committed upon her by the appellant, as per her
statement as well the statement of other prosecution witnesses
cannot be brushed aside as the same is corroborated by the
medical evidence of the Doctor (P.W.-7) who also found several
mark of sexual assault on the body of the prosecutrix. Further,
the Doctor also opined that the injury stated above can be caused
due to sexual intercourse also.
13. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, we
find that most of the witnesses have blamed the appellant for
committing rape upon the prosecutrix stating that the appellant
wants to marry the prosecutrix but as the same was not
happening, he committed the said offence.
14. 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 (1) of the Indian Penal
Code. We are also of the opinion that the sentence imposed is
also adequate.
15. Thus, we find this Criminal Appeal sans any merit.
Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The impugned
judgment of conviction dated 23.06.2016 and order of sentence
dated 24.06.2016 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge-
II-F.T.C., Bokaro, in S.T. Case No.114 of 2014, are hereby
affirmed.
16. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands
disposed of.
17. Trial Court Record be transmitted back to the Court
concerned.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
(GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
Dated:- 23/10/2024
AFR / Prashant
