Sanjeet Rawani vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 9753 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Sanjeet Rawani vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 October, 2024

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 997 of 2018
  [Against the Judgment of conviction dated 03.08.2028 and order of
    sentence dated 04.08.2018 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions
    Judge-1st Cum- Special Judge (POCSO) Jamtara in S.T. Case No.
    5/2016].

   Sanjeet Rawani, son of late Panu Rawani, resident of village
   Karmatanr, P.O and P.S. Baliapur, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
                                                      ............APPELLANT
                               Versus
    The State of Jharkhand                        ............RESPONDENT
                                     ......

     For the Appellant :   Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate.
     For the State    :    Ms. Rashmi Sinha, A.P.P.
                                    ......

                             PRESENT
                           SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
                           SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

                             JUDGMENT

By Court:

(Dated: 01.10.2024)

This criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 03.08.2028 and order of sentence dated 04.08.2018 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-1st Cum- Special Judge (POCSO) Jamtara in S.T. Case No. 5/2016, whereby and whereunder, the appellant having been found guilty of charge under Section376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 and 10 of the POCSO Act and has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 13 years with a fine of Rs.15,000/- under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that due to admitted enmity between the appellant and the family of the victim, this appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that there is nothing in the evidence to suggest that rape has been committed upon the victim. He lastly submits that the punishment of 13 years is too harsh, which needs to be reduced.

Page/1

3. Counsel for the State submits that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. She further submits that the victim was minor i.e. 8 years old at the time of occurrence and there is sufficient evidence, ocular and medical to suggest that the victim has been raped.

4. The FIR is at the instance of the mother of the victim (P.W.2) who stated that she was the tenant in the house of one Krishna Sao. Both she and her husband were not at home as the informant was working as a domestic help and her husband was earning his livelihood by hawking. She stated that her daughter i.e. the victim was alone with her younger sister, aged about three years. When the informant returned, she found sign of bleeding in the pant of the victim and on asking she replied that her neighbour had committed rape upon the victim by undressing her. She stated that per private part was penetrated also, which caused bleeding. She also mentioned in the FIR that her daughter stated that she was also threatened and this appellant directed her to tell that she fell down, thus the bleeding has been caused. The informant stated that though the occurrence had taken place on 23.10.2015 but the information was given on 24.10.2015 as she wanted to verify the aforesaid fact.

5. On the basis of this statement, FIR being Jamtara (Mihijam ) P.S. Case No. 367 of 2015 was registered under Sections 376 IPC, Section 4 of the POCSO Act and Section 3/ 4 (1) (xi) (xii) of SC/ST Act. After investigation, the police submitted chargesheet under Sections Sections 376(A) IPC, Section 10 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(1) (xi)(xii) of SC/ST Act. Accordingly, cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. As the appellant pleaded not guilty, charges were framed against him for the aforesaid sections.

6. In order to prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution had examined altogether eleven witnesses, who are as follows:-

P.W.1- Bidhan Chandra Das, P.W.2- Babi Devi (informant) Page/2 P.W.3- Monu Paswan (father of the victim) P.W.4- Victim P.W.5- Dr. Dinesh Chandra Munshi, P.W.6- Sonu Kumar Paswan P.W.7- Manoj Paswan P.W.8- Urmila Devi P.W.9- Rekha Devi P.W.10- Dinesh Kumar Sharma (I.O. of this case), and P.W.11- Dr. Lilly Marry Bilung.

7. Several documents were also exhibited, which are as follows:-

Ext.-1: Written application in writing and signature of P.W.1 Ext.-1/1: Signature of victim on written application Ext.-2: Signature of P.W. 1 on seizure list. Ext.-2/1: Seizure list in the writing of P.W. 10.

            Ext.-3:     Signature of victim on statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C
            Ext.-4:     Injury report of accused.
            Ext.-4/1    Requisition for injury report of the accused.
            Ext.5       Formal FIR.
            Ext.-6      Injury Report of the victim.

Ext.6/1 & 6/2 Signatures of Dr. D.C. Munshi and Dr. S.K.Paswan respectively on injury report of the victim. Ext.7: Supplementary Injury Report of victim.

Ext.8: OPD Slip of the victim.

Ext.9 to 9/1 Two FSL Reports No. 1222/15 dated 23.12.2015 and 20.1.2016 respectively.

Ext.10 Statement of victim u/s 164 Cr.P.C.

8. The Trial Court thereafter considering the evidences had convicted the appellant for committing the offence as aforesaid.

9. In this case, we find that the main witnesses are the victim and the doctor. The victim is P.W. 4, who stated that her mother had gone out and she was alone with her younger sister and when she was cleaning infront of the house, this appellant, who was near the pole called her. She refused to go when he caught hold of her hand and took her in his house and by removing her pant, he penetrated his private part in her private part. He gave her Rs. 10/- and threatened her not to disclose it to her parents. He also directed her to tell that she fell from thela (hand cart). Her mother came and saw that the blood was oozing out from her private part and she was frightened. She told that she fell from thela but at night, she narrated the entire story. She identified the signature in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, which has been marked as Ext. 1/1. From her Page/3 statement, it is apparent that she has supported the prosecution case that the appellant had raped her.

10. To get corroboration of her statement, we have gone through the deposition of P.W.11 i.e. the doctor, who had examined the victim. She stated that on examination of genetalia of the girl, she found blood stains with discharge from the vagina. The hymen was ruptured and there was linear laceration with redness in right and left clavia minora. The doctor opined on the basis of the findings that the victim has been sexually assaulted.

11. On the basis of the supplementary medical report, it has been established that the victim was aged about 11 years. The signature of the victim on the injury report has been marked as Ext.-6. The supplementary injury report of the victim has been marked as Ext.-7.

12. The undergarments of the girl was sent to forensic science laboratory for examination in which human blood was found, which is evident from FSL Reports, which have been marked as Ext. 9 and 9/1.

13. From the aforesaid evidence, we find that not only the victim has supported the case of the prosecution that this appellant had committed rape upon her but also the fact that the victim has been raped, has also been substantiated by the medical evidence. There were injuries in her private part, which has been substantiated by the doctor's medical report and the presence of the blood in her undergarments has also been substantiated by the FSL Report.

14. P.W. 1 is a neighbour who stated that he was informed by the informant that her daughter has been raped. He stated that on receiving the said information, he went to her house and saw that blood was oozing out from the private part of the girl. Thus the fact of bleeding from the private part of the girl has also been substantiated by P.W. 1.

15. P.W. 2 and P.W. 3, who are the mother and the father of the victim, have also supported the factum of rape and injury on the

Page/4 private part of the girl, which has also been corroborated by the medical evidence.

16. The defence has taken a plea that this appellant has falsely been implicated in this case due to enmity between the family of the victim and the appellant. We do not find any evidence to suggest that there was any enmity, between the family of the victim and the appellant. Even if there is enmity then the same will go against this appellant, as it can be concluded that the appellant due to the enmity has committed the aforesaid offence. The commission of rape has been substantiated by the medical evidence and from the testimony of the victim. The involvement of the appellant in this occurrence has also been substantiated by the victim itself.

17. So far as quantum of punishment is concerned, we find that the sentence of thirteen years with fine of Rs.15,000/- has been imposed upon this appellant. Considering the nature of offence, which the appellant has committed and the age of the victim, we find no illegality in the sentence awarded by the Trial Court.

18. Thus, we find no merit in this appeal. The Judgment of conviction dated 03.08.2018 and order of sentence dated 04.08.2018 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-1st -Cum- Special Judge (POCSO) Jamtara in S.T. Case No. 5/2016 needs no interference and is thus affirmed.

19. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of.

20. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this judgment.

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

(GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi.

Dated: the 01st October, 2024.

NAFR/Anu-Cp.-3.

Page/5