Hopna Soren vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 9149 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Hopna Soren vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 September, 2024

Author: Ratnaker Bhengra

Bench: Ratnaker Bhengra, Ambuj Nath

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1017 of 2018
                               ----------

Hopna Soren, aged about 45 years, Son of Late Safa Soren, resident of village-Bagsisa, P.O & P.S-Hiranpur, District Pakur.

... Appellant

-Versus-

The State of Jharkhand                                ...   Respondent

                                ----------

CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
                                ----------
For the Appellant(s)       : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State              : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P
                                 ----------

C.A.V. On : 12/02/2024                       Pronounced On: 11/ 9 /2024

      Heard the parties.

2. The appellant Hopna Soren has filed this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.08.2018 (sentenced passed on 08.08.2018) passed by Sri R. K. Srivastava, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pakur in connection with Sessions Trial Case No.67/2013(S), arising out of Hiranpur P.S. Case No.24/2012, corresponding to G.R. Case No.117/2012, holding the appellant guilty of offences under Sections 323, 341, 450/34, 376(2)(g) and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby, sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life alongwith a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years alongwith a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The appellant was further sentenced to undergo R.I for five years alongwith a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offences under Sections 450/34 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, he was further sentenced to undergo R.I for one month. No separate sentences were passed for the offences under Sections 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of written report of the prosecutrix, alleging therein that on 05.02.2012 at about 7:00 P.M, she was alone in her house and her husband had gone to Burdaman when the appellant Hopna Soren and his brother Shivdhan Soren entered inside her house and started physically assaulting her. It is further case of the prosecution that this appellant Hopna Soren had caught hold of her and gagged her mouth and his brother Shivdhan Soren raped her. After the occurrence, she raised alarm on which the accused persons fled away.

4. After registration of the F.I.R, during the course of investigation, the victim died.

After investigation, police found the occurrence to be true and submitted the chargesheet against the appellant under Sections 452, 341, 376/34, 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur on 19.06.2012 and the case was committed on 11.02.2013, showing that the appellant Hopna Soren is as an absconder. The appellant Hopna Soren was arrested on 29.04.2014 and he underwent trial. Charge was framed against the appellant on 04.02.2015 for the offences under Sections 452, 460, 341, 376/34, 302/34 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. The content of the charge was read over and explained to him in Hindi, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried.

6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence.

Dr. Sanjay Kumar Jha, who had conducted the postmortem, has been examined as P.W.1. Dr. Satish Chandra Singh has been examined as P.W.2. Dr. Navina Barla has been examined as P.W.3. Mandal Hembrom has been examined as P.W.4. Gundaru Hembram has been examined as P.W.5. Lilu Baski has been examined as P.W.6. Tala Hembram has been examined as P.W.7 and the Investigating Officer Ashok Kumar Singh has been examined as P.W.8.

The prosecution has adduced the postmortem report in evidence, which is Exhibit-1, Medico Legal report of the victim issued from PHC Hiranpur is Exhibit-2, another medico legal report of the victim issued by Dr. Navina Barla at Sadar Hospital, Pakur is Exhibit-3. Police requisition dated 05.02.2012 is Exhibit-4. Another police requisition dated 06.02.2012 is Exhibit-5. The inquest report of the deceased is Exhibit-6

and the xerox copy of the chargesheet is Exhibit-7.

7. The statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The defence is general denial of the occurrence and false implication.

8. On the basis of the evidence available on record, learned Trial Court held the appellant guilty and sentenced him accordingly.

9. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellant has filed this appeal.

10. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence as the victim died during the course of investigation. It was further submitted that the doctor who had performed the postmortem on the person of the deceased did not find any injury. It was also submitted that the doctor, who had medically examined the victim, had not given any definite opinion that the deceased was raped. On this ground, it was prayed that this appeal be allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Court below be set aside.

Learned counsel on behalf of the State has submitted that all the prosecution witnesses have supported the fact that the deceased was raped and subsequently, she died due to the injury suffered during sexual assault.

11. Now, it has to be ascertained whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts.

In order to come to the aforesaid finding, it has to be further ascertained as follows :

i) Whether the deceased Barki Hansda died an unnatural death ?

ii) Whether the appellant had caused homicidal death ?

iii) Whether the appellant had committed gang rape of Barki Hansda ?

12. The case of the prosecution is that on 05.02.2012 at about 7:00 P.M, when the prosecutrix was alone in her house, the accused Shivdhan Soren and his brother Hopna Soren entered her house. Appellant Hopna Soren caught hold of her and gagged her mouth and the accused Shivdhan Soren raped her.

13. On perusal of the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is evident that Mandal Hembrom P.W.4 is the husband of the deceased. He

is the hearsay witness. He has stated that the occurrence took place about four years ago. He was not present in the house and when he returned home, his wife told him that both Shivdhan Soren and Hopna Soren had raped her. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had gone to Burdman, West Bengal for harvesting paddy which was at a distance of about 300-400 kms from his house. He had gone to the police station after 2 to 3 days from the date of occurrence.

Gundaru Hembram P.W.5 has been declared hostile. Lilu Baski P.W.6 has been declared hostile.

Tala Hembram P.W.7 has also been declared hostile. Dr. Sanjay Kumar Jha P.W.1 had performed the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased. He had found no external injuries on her person. According to this witness, on internal examination, stomach was found to be ruptured and the content spread throughout the abdominal cavity. He has stated that the death of the deceased was caused due to shock arising out of rupture of vital organ i.e stomach, which was caused by hard and blunt substance. In his cross-examination, he has further stated that the stomach may be ruptured due to gastric ulcer. On perusal of the postmortem report Exhibit-1, it appears that the findings of Dr. Sanjay Kumar Jha P.W.1 in the postmortem report fully corroborates his oral testimony as recorded in the Court during the trial.

Dr. Satish Chandra Singh P.W.2 had examined the victim on 05.02.2012. He had found abrasion, pain and tenderness in the lower abdomen of the deceased. He has also found abrasion of size 4 x 1 inch over the interior surface of the left wrist joint. Both these injuries were caused by rough and blunt objects within three hours of the examination. The examination had taken place at 11:00 pm. He has proved the injury report which is Exhibit-2. As per the oral testimony of this witness, the deceased had suffered pain and tenderness in her lower abdomen and abrasion in her left wrist joint on 05.02.2012.

Dr. Navina Barla P.W.3 is another doctor, who had examined the deceased and found the abrasion on the wrist joint of her left hand. However, she did not find any mark of violence on her external genital. She has stated that she cannot come to the definite opinion regarding rape. She has proved the injury report issued by her is Exhibit-3.

14. The victim has not been examined as she died during the course of

investigation. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 05.02.2012 at about 7:00 pm. Mandal Hembrom P.W.4 has stated that at the time of the occurrence, he was not present in his house, rather he had gone for harvesting in Burdman which was at a distance of 300-400 Kms from his house. He has further stated that his wife told him that both the appellant and his brother Shivdhan Soren had raped her. The written report which was instituted by the deceased-victim has not been adduced in evidence. Had this written report been adduced in evidence, the statement of the victim would have been admissible against the appellant. The doctor, who had performed the postmortem, has not found any external injuries on her person. According to Dr. Sanjay Kumar Jha P.W.1, the deceased died due to rupture in her stomach, which may be caused due to gastric ulcer. Dr. Navina Barla P.W.3, who had examined the deceased, had not found any mark of violence over her external genital. She has also stated that she cannot give definite opinion that the deceased victim was raped. Apart from the statement of Mandal Hembrom P.W.4 who is the hearsay witness, there is no other material against the appellant on record. Though the statement that the deceased had told him about the occurrence may amount to oral dying declaration of the deceased, but in absence of any other corroborating evidence, his sole statement on this point cannot be relied upon.

15. In view of the discussions made above, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the appellant Hopna Soren beyond all reasonable doubts.

16. This appeal is accordingly, allowed.

Pending I.A, if any, also stands disposed of.

It appears that the appellant is in custody and the learned Court below is directed to release the appellant at once, if he is not wanted in any other case.

(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)

(Ambuj Nath, J.)

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Date- 11 / 9 /2024 BS/