Britius Dungdung @ Brisius Dungdung ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 4507 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Britius Dungdung @ Brisius Dungdung ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 April, 2025

                                                            2025:JHHC:10473


                     Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1488 of 2006
[Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31.03.2006
passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega in S.T. No. 13 of 2005 arising
out of Thethaitangar P.S. Case No. 47 of 2005 (G.R.) Case No. 335 of 2004]


Britius Dungdung @ Brisius Dungdung aged about 25 years, Son of Pitrush
Dungdung, Resident of Village:- Taraboga, Deepatoli, P.S.:- Thethaitangar,
District-Simdega.
                                                           ....      Appellant


                                      Versus
The State of Jharkhand                                        ..... Respondent
                               PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
                          --------
For the Appellant         : Mr. Parth Jalan, Amicus Curiae.
For the Respondent        : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P.
                                ---------


                               JUDGMENT

C.A.V. On 07.01.2025 Pronounced On: 03/04/2025 Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

Heard learned counsel for appellant Mr. Parth Jalan, Amicus Curiae

as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State Mr.

Shiv Shankar Kumar.

2. Present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and

sentence of the appellant dated 31st March, 2006 passed by Additional

Sessions Judge, Simdega in Sessions Trial No. 13 of 2005 whereby and

where under the appellant has been held guilty and sentenced for the

offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and directed to undergo R.I. for

seven years.

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1488 of 2006 Page | 1 2025:JHHC:10473

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 03.11.2004, on the

occasion of Sohrai festival, a dance programme was organized in village

Tarawoga, Deepatoli where informant's daughter aged about 11 years along

with her brother-in-law had gone to participate in the programme. It is

further alleged that at about 10:00 PM, appellant Britush Dundung forcibly

lifted the daughter of the informant and carried towards a dilapidated house

surrounded with bushes and forcibly committed rape upon her. It is further

alleged that when victim girl raised alarm, then several villagers attracted

and went towards the place of occurrence, but the accused managed to flee

away.

On the basis of above information, F.I.R. being Thethai Tanger P.S. Case

No. 47 of 2004 was registered for the offence under Section 366A/376 of the

I.P.C. and after the conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted

for the aforesaid offences against the sole appellant and accordingly charges

were framed. Appellant denied from charges levelled against him and

claimed to be tried and after conclusion of trial, impugned judgment and

order has been passed which has been assailed in this appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that learned trail court has

skipped the mandatory provision of Section 235 (2) of the Cr.P.C. and

without hearing the argument of accused, arrived at the conclusion of guilt

and pronounced the judgment. The learned trial court has whispered not a

single word that as to what was argued on behalf of the appellant in his

defence. The learned trial court has simply translated the evidence of

witnesses and without appreciating, analysing and evaluating their intrinsic

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1488 of 2006 Page | 2 2025:JHHC:10473

value has been swayed upon the general testimony of the witnesses and held

the appellant the guilty for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. It is

further submitted that the genesis, occasion, place and manner of occurrence

as stated by the prosecution finds no corroboration from any other evidence.

The most vital thing is that the victim girl is alleged to have only aged about

11 years proceeded from her house with her brother-in-law, but she has

failed to mention the name of her brother-in-law upon court question during

cross-examination. She has stated in her statement before the police that she

was talking with her brother-in-law at the time of occurrence. She has also

admitted that she did not disclose about the occurrence to anyone and later

on she told to her parents. The witnesses examined by prosecution have

given complete go bye to the statement of victim.

5. It is further submitted that on the occurrence of Sohrai festival admittedly,

there was crowd of 100 to 150 people and according to victim girl, it was

dark night and she was talking with her brother-in-law, then how it was

possible that the appellant would lift the victim girl from behind and

dragged her to more than 200 to 250 yards by gagging her mouth. The

victim girl has also given a contradictory statement regarding manner of

occurrence and specifically stated that when the accused took her towards

the dilapidated house, tore her undergarments and forcibly laid her down in

a ditch, then she raised a loud alarm and after hearing commotion, several

persons assembled at the place of occurrence and she was brought to her

house in naked position, but none of the local villagers have corroborated

the aforesaid testimony of the victim. It is further submitted that the victim

girl has stated that her wearing garments were not seized by the police. She

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1488 of 2006 Page | 3 2025:JHHC:10473

has also stated that she was dropped from the height of 3 to 4 feet in the

ditch on hard surface and fell down on back side, due to which she sustained

some scratches. Thereafter, rape was committed upon her about 5 to 10

minutes. She cannot identify any of the witnesses due to darkness of night.

It is further submitted that no external or internal injury has been found on

the body of the victim girl during her medical examination and hymen was

also found intact. There was no clinical or medical evidence establishing

commission of rape on the victim girl. It is clear that it is an out and out a

false case lodged by the father of the victim girl due to previous enmity and

village politics. The learned trial court has failed to properly appreciate the

evidence of victim as a whole considering the materials elicited during

cross-examination in the light of testimony of other witnesses of facts.

Therefore, conviction and sentence of the appellant is absolutely

unwarranted under law and beyond the weight of evidence available on

record which is fit to be set aside.

6. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has defended the

impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant

and submitted that the learned trial court has meticulously considered overall

evidence available on record and finding no reason to disbelieve the

prosecution story and the testimony of the victim girl. Therefore, conviction

and sentence of the appellant, does not require any interference. Hence, this

appeal is fit to be dismissed.

7. For better appreciation of the case, I have to take brief resume of the

prosecution evidence.

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1488 of 2006 Page | 4 2025:JHHC:10473

The most important witness is the victim girl, who has been examined as

P.W.4 is the victim girl who has disclosed her date of birth as 06.06.1993.

According to her evidence on 03.11.2004 at about 09:10 PM she along with

her brother-in-law was present in the village arena on the occasion of Sohrai

for singing and dancing and was also talking with her brother-in-law

meanwhile, the present appellant came there and lifted her in his lap and took

her towards a ditch and laid her down with force then, she raised alarm, but

the accused brought her in a house where no one was residing, tore her

clothes. It is further alleged that her mouth was gagged by one hand, but

when he lifted his hand, then she raised a loud alarm, but the accused

committed rape upon her and when the persons assembled in the dance party

arrived, the accused fled away. The members of dance party brought her to

her home in naked condition.

In her cross-examination, she admits that on the occasion of dance party

about 150 people were assembled and it was dark night. The accused caught

hold of her from behind and lifted after gagging her mouth by putting hand

on her eyes. She was forcibly laid down and dropped from 3-4 feet height in

the ditch and she fell on back side portion which was injured. She also

admits that near the ditch no villager came to rescue her. She brought to the

house of Jasinta Bilung where she was raped about 5-10 minutes. She further

clarified that she has sustained injuries on back and scratches on her right

hand. She also states that Serophina Kullu (P.W.2) and Jasinta Bilung had

also reached at the place of occurrence, but she could not identify them. The

accused was wearing white colour full shirt and a full pant. She also states

that her undergarments and upper clothes were also torn which were thrown

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1488 of 2006 Page | 5 2025:JHHC:10473

by the persons who had come for inquiry. She further states that she cannot

tell the name of her brother-in-law, but in her statement before police,

she has stated that at the time of occurrence, she was talking to her

brother-in-law. She also admits that as regards above incident, she told none

else, but to her parents. She denied the suggestion of defence about any land

dispute between the father of this witness and family members of the accused

due to which she has falsely implicated the accused in this case.

P.W.3 Fedarik Dungdung is the father of the victim and also informant of

this case. According to his evidence at about 09:00 PM on 03/11/2004, he

was present in his house and taking rest, meanwhile Serophina Kullu (P.W.2)

along with her mother Magreat Kullu (P.W.1) and asked about his daughter,

then he disclosed that she had gone to attend dance party. He further deposed

that in the meantime, he heard some noise of his minor daughter aged about

11 years, coming from a dilapidated house. He did not go there, but some

members of dance party and his wife went there and brought his daughter to

home then, she (victim) disclosed that the accused (Brituish Dungdung) has

committed rape with her. There was no clothes on her body except a blouse.

This witness has further deposed that prior to the occurrence, his daughter

went to the house of Magreat Kullu (P.W.1), thereafter, in the night this

witness along with other villagers went to the house of accused (Brituish

Dungdung) who was at his home, but did not open the door. When this

witness and other villagers attempted to broke open the door, then he came

out. The accused was caught and interrogated strictly, but he denied from his

guilt and started pelting stones. He has further stated that his daughter also

disclosed before the accused about the commission of rape with her, but he

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1488 of 2006 Page | 6 2025:JHHC:10473

paid no heed. Then, in the next day morning, case was lodged. He has proved

the written report in his writing and signature and also signed by his wife and

victim daughter.

In his cross-examination, he admits that he has only one daughter and

two sons who were not present at the time of incident. He came to know

about the occurrence from his daughter and denied the suggestion of defence

about false implication due to land dispute with the appellant.

P.W.1 Magreat Kullu is a hearsay witness and she came to know about the

occurrence next day morning through victim girl. Therefore, the evidence of

this witness is also not helpful to the prosecution.

P.W.2 Serophina Kullu is also the member of dancing party and she also not

an eye-witness of the occurrence rather clearly states that she came to know

in the same night from the victim girl that the accused (Brituish Dungdung)

has committed rape with her.

In her cross-examination, she clearly states that on the occasion of

dancing, she could not have noticed that the victim girl was present there or

not and the place of occurrence was also not disclosed to her.

P.W.5 Jai Singh Kerketta is private watchman. According to his evidence,

on 03.11.2004 at about 08:00 PM he was blowing band and others villagers

were dancing, thereafter, he returned to his home for taking dinner. At about

02:00 AM, in the night the informant told him that the accused (Brituish

Dungdung) has committed rape on his daughter. Therefore, this witness is

hearsay witness and having no personal knowledge of the occurrence.

P.W.6 Sebastin Dungdung is also a hearsay witness who came to know

about the occurrence on the next day morning through rumour in the village.

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1488 of 2006 Page | 7 2025:JHHC:10473

P.W.7 Kapil Dev Prasad Keshri is the partial Investigating Officer of this

case who has been simply submitted charge-sheet after finding sufficient

evidence from the previous investigation.

P.W.8 Ratan Kumar Singh is the first Investigating Officer of this case who

has proved the formal F.I.R. which is marked as Exhibit-2. He recorded the

restatement of informant and also recorded the statement of the victim girl

and sent the victim for medical examination at Tanger hospital. He has

visited the place of occurrence which is dilapidated house of Silvanas

Kerketta surrounded with bushes. He has also recorded the statement of

Serofina Kullu, Magreat Kullu, Jai Singh Kerketta, Sabestian Dungdung,

Lutami Dungdung etc. arrested the accused and also recorded his statement

and obtained the medical report of the victim girl. Thereafter, he was

transferred and further charge of investigation was handed over to the then

Officer-In-Charge.

In his cross-examination, he admits that he has not recorded the statement

of mother and sister of the victim girl and he has also not seized the clothes

of victim girl during the investigation.

P.W.9 Dr. Veena Murmu who has examined the victim girl on 04.11.2004

and found following:-

(i) No external or internal injuries found on the body of victim girl.

(ii) Hymen intact

(iii) Tenderness of the Mucosa at the introituses.

(iv) No foreign hairs found in pelvic area.

8. On the other hand the case of defence is denial from occurrence and false

implication due to previous land dispute with the informant.

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1488 of 2006 Page | 8 2025:JHHC:10473

9. From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear from the evidence that the victim

girl as well as the informant have suppressed the facts and implicated the

appellant due to previous enmity. Material facts from disclosure and the

witnesses alleged to be eye-witness of the occurrence namely, P.W.1 Magreat

Kullu, P.W.2 Serofina Kullu, P.W.5 Jai Singh Kerketta, P.W.6 Sebestian

Dungdung materially affected the prosecution story, claiming them to be

hearsay witness of the occurrence therefore, the claim of the prosecution that

victim was brought to her house by the local villagers in naked condition is

absolutely false story. The victim herself admits that her wearing clothes

were seized by the police which do not find corroboration from the evidence

of first Investigating Officer. Victim has no sister at all, but she disclosed that

she was talking with her brother-in-law at the time of the occurrence and in

her cross-examination also denied to tell the name of her brother-in-law then,

who was the real person talking with the victim girl has not been made a

witness in this case. The informant has also taken a contradictory stand that

after hearing hulla of his victim daughter, he went to place of occurrence, but

immediately resile from that statement and stated that mother of the victim

along with co-villager went to place of occurrence. It is highly surprising that

the mother of the victim who might be an eye-witness of the occurrence has

not been examined by the prosecution. I further find that not only on the

factual aspects of the matter, but also on account of medical examination of

the victim, the story of commission of rape appears to be false and fabricated

one. The age of the victim has been stated as eleven years old. No external or

internal injury on her body was found. Although, the victim herself has

claimed that she was dropped from the height of 3-4 feet in a ditch by the

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1488 of 2006 Page | 9 2025:JHHC:10473

accused. She also sustained injuries on her back side. Her medical

examination was also promptly conducted, but even any bruise or abrasions

have not been found on her body. She has also stated about the commission

of forcible sexual intercourse by the accused who is a grown up boy and the

victim is tender year girl. In spite of that hymen was found intact also belies

the prosecution story. Not only this there was no injury on vagina or private

part which is also not possible if the victim's evidence is taken to be gospel

truth.

10.It appears that the learned trial court has inadvertently escaped from the

considering the aforesaid material inconsistencies appearing in the

prosecution evidence which falsify the prosecution story as alleged in the

F.I.R and also deposed by the victim under the influence of her father. The

charge of rape levelled against the appellant does not

appear to be proved conclusively by the prosecution. The aforesaid glaring

inconsistencies/discrepancies and material suppression of real facts by the

prosecution makes the prosecution story absolutely doubtful.

11. In view of above discussion and reasons, I find substance in the points of

arguments raised on behalf of the appellant and merit in this appeal.

Therefore, impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is

hereby set aside and this appeal is allowed.

12. Considering the proper assistance of learned Amicus Curiae in disposal of

this case, we direct the Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee

to pay remuneration of Rs.2,500/- to Mr. Parth Jalan, the learned Amicus

Curiae.

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1488 of 2006 Page | 10 2025:JHHC:10473

13. Appellant is on bail, hence, he is discharged from the liability of bail bond

and sureties are also be discharged.

14. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court records be sent back to the

court concerned for information and needful.

15. Pending I.As, if any stands disposed of.

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi Date: 03/04/2025 Amar/- N.A.F.R.

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1488 of 2006 Page | 11