Jharkhand High Court
Ramesh Oraon S/O Gosai Oraon vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 September, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) NO. 1160 OF 2018
----
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION
DATED 9TH JULY 2018 AND ORDER OF
SENTENCE DATED 10TH JULY, 2018 PASSED
BY THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL
COMMISSIONER-XVIII CUM SPECIAL JUDGE,
POCSO, RANCHI IN SESSION TRIAL NO. 789
OF 2013.
----
Ramesh Oraon S/o Gosai Oraon, resident of Village BIT Mesra, PO
BIT Mesra, PS Sadar, Dist. Ranchi.
... Appellant
-versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
----
For the Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, A.P.P.
----
PRESENT: SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
----
JUDGMENT
Date : 27.09.2024
By Court Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for
the State.
2. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of
conviction dated 9th July, 2018 and order of sentence dated 10th July, 2018
passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVIII cum Special Judge,
POCSO, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No.789 of 2013, arising out of Sadar
Police Station Case No.117 of 2013 (G.R. No.2343 of 2013), whereby and
whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for offences under Section
376(2) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Thousand) and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that an
improbable case has been set up by the prosecution, wherein it has been
Cr. Appeal (DB) 1160 of 2018
alleged that the father has committed rape upon the minor daughter. Trial
Court failed to take into consideration that no independent eye witness has
been examined in this case. The witness, P.W.3 has been declared hostile
and the doctor, who examined the victim, has stated that no evidence of
sexual intercourse was found at the time of examination. In view of doctor's
report, prosecution story is absolutely bad. Even the FSL report suggests
that no semen was found in the material exhibit, which suggests that this
appellant has been falsely implicated in this case.
4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submits that the date of
occurrence is between March 2012 and May 2013 and not only the victim,
but also the mother of the girl, i.e., wife of the appellant has supported the
prosecution version. Thus, in view of clear evidence, this appeal is liable to
be dismissed.
5. The prosecution case is at the behest of the minor victim, who
stated that her father forcibly established sexual relation with her and
specifically stated that at the time of Holi, his father was in drunken condition
and had committed sexual intercourse and threatened not to disclose the
fact to anyone, but she disclosed the same before her mother. It has been
further stated that her father did not commit anything further for next 6/7
months, but again on the night of 08.05.2013 the appellant committed rape
upon her and again threatened the victim.
6. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation, Sadar Police Station
Case No.117 of 2013 was registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal
Code as against the appellant.
Police, after completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet
against the appellant for offences under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal
Code. Cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed for
trial. Charge was framed under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code,
which was read over and explained to the appellant. Since the appellant
pleaded not guilty, he was put on trial.
7. To bring home the charge against the appellant, the prosecution
had examined 5 (five) witnesses, namely P.W.1 the victim herself, P.W.2
Basanti Oraon (mother of the victim), P.W.3 Ibrahim Ansari, who is witness
to the seizure, P.W.4 Dr. Bibha Singh, who had examined the victim, P.W.5
J.P. Singh, the investigating officer of this case and P.W.6 Dr. R.S. Singh,
Cr. Appeal (DB) 1160 of 2018
who exhibited the SFSL Report.
The prosecution also produced following documents to
substantiate its case, which were marked exhibits:-
Exhibit 1 Signature of victim over fardbeyan dated 09.05.2013
Exhibit 1/A Signature of Basanti Oraon over fardbeyan dated
09.05.2013
Exhibit 2 Signature of Victim over statement under Section 164 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure
Exhibit 3 Signature of victim over seizure list dated 09.05.2013 /
deposition dated 18.12.2013
Exhibit 3/A Signature of Basanti Oraon over the Seizure List dated
09.05.2013
Exhibit 4 Signature of Ibrahim Ansari over Seizure List dated
09.05.2013
Exhibit 5 Medical Examination Report of Victim dated 10.05.2013
Exhibit 6 SFSL Report No.606/2013 dated 26.10.2013
Mark 'X' Letter dated 26.06.2013 of Assembly of God Church
School
8. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the
appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein he claimed to be
innocent.
9. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments and appreciating
the evidences on record, by the judgment of conviction dated 9th July, 2018
and order of sentence dated 10th July, 2018 passed in Sessions Trial No.789
of 2013, has convicted and sentenced the appellant for offence under
Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code.
10. After hearing the parties, to see the involvement of this
appellant and veracity of the prosecution case, we have gone through the
evidence, both oral and documentary.
11. P.W.2 is the doctor, who had examined the victim. She stated
that the girl is aged between 13 to 14 years, but she stated that no evidence
of sexual intercourse was found. Be it noted that the girl was examined by
the doctor on 10th May, 2013, whereas as per the prosecution case,
occurrence had taken place sometime in March 2012 and April, 2013. From
the evidence of the doctor, we find that the victim is minor.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Ravindra versus
State of M.P. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 491 has held that the evidence of
the victim prosecutrix if found reliable, by itself may be sufficient to convict
the culprit and no corroboration of her evidence is necessary and secondly
in prosecution of rape, the law does not require corroboration. It has further
been held that the evidence of the prosecutrix may sustain a conviction.
Cr. Appeal (DB) 1160 of 2018
Paragraph 4 of the said judgment in the case of Ravindra (supra) reads 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.
13. In this case, the victim is P.W.1. She stated that she is not
aware about the date, but it was sometime in March 2012 during the period
of Holi. Three days after the Holi, the father of this witness, i.e., the appellant
after consuming alcohol in a fully drunken condition committed wrong with
her. She was touched improperly after opening her dress and she was
raped. She was also threatened. She narrated the incident to her mother.
Her mother also rebuked her husband. For 6-7 months nothing happened to
her and again one day when she was sleeping with her siblings, her father
again came and committed rape upon her. When she raised alarm, her
mother woke up and when she objected, this appellant started assaulting her
mother also. Again on 8th May, 2013 same incident had occurred and then
all the family members were threatened, only thereafter the case was
lodged.
14. To see whether there is any corroboration to the statement of
the victim, we have gone through the evidence of P.W.2, who is the mother
of the victim and wife of this appellant. She in her evidence narrated exactly
what her daughter had stated. She stated that after drinking liquor this
appellant committed rape upon her minor daughter. Six to seven months
after the first incident, again the similar incident had taken place and this
appellant raped her. On 8th April, 2013, again rape was committed. She
stated in the next morning she went to the police station where the first
information report was lodged. She proved her signature on the fardbeyan,
Cr. Appeal (DB) 1160 of 2018
which was marked as Exhibit 1/A. In cross examination, she stated that
when occurrence took place, they were sleeping in the same room, thus,
there was no question of not seeing the occurrence. She denied that
appellant has been falsely implicated. She stated that the relationship
between her and her husband is good, that is why three children were born
out of their wedlock. She stated that when the first incident of rape had
occurred, her physical health was very weak as she was suffering from
some ailments.
15. Thus, from the evidence of the victim and mother of the victim,
we find that there is no inconsistency in their statements. They have clearly
stated that under influence of liquor this appellant has committed heinous
offence of rape upon her own daughter. There is nothing in evidence of
these two witnesses to disbelieve them nor there are material to suggest that
there was any occasion to falsely implicate the father in this type of heinous
crime, if the same had not actually occurred, when admittedly there was no
dispute between husband and wife.
16. On overall consideration of the entire materials on record, we
find no merit in this appeal. The judgment of conviction dated 9th July, 2018
and order of sentence dated 10th July, 2018 passed by the Additional
Judicial Commissioner XVIII cum Special Judge, POCSO, Ranchi in
Sessions Trial No.789 of 2013 needs no interference. This appeal is,
accordingly, dismissed.
17. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
18. 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.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated, the 27th September, 2024
NAFR/Kumar/Cp-03
Cr. Appeal (DB) 1160 of 2018
