Jharkhand High Court
Najrul Ansari @ Gulshan Biswas vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 April, 2025
2025:JHHC:10295
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.814 of 2006
------
[Against the judgment and order of conviction dated 15.05.2006 and
sentence dated 17.05.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara in
Sessions Case No.101 of 2004]
------
Najrul Ansari @ Gulshan Biswas, son of Sri Nasiuddin Ansari,
Resident of village-Khajuria, P.S.-Kundhit, District-Jamtara
.... .... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Suman Kr. Ghosh, Advocate
Mr. Durga C. Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Atanu Bannerjee, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P.
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGEMENT
------
CAV On 06/01/2025 Pronounced On: 03/ 04 /2025
Per-Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order
of conviction dated 15.05.2006 and sentence dated 17.05.2006
passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Sessions Case
No.101 of 2004 whereby and whereunder, the sole appellant
has been held guilty for the offence under sections 347/376 of
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.814 of 2006
2025:JHHC:10295
Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. of 1 year for
the offence under section 347 of I.P.C. and R.I. of 7 years for the
offence under section 376 of IPC. Both sentences are directed to
run concurrently.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a narrow campus as
per written report of prosecutrix-cum-victim is that on 30th
June, 2003, the present appellant met the prosecutrix in her
village and ensured her to procure matriculation certificate and
asked to come on 02.07.2003 at Fatehpur, T.K. Gram, thereafter,
they will go to Jamtara. Relying upon his assurance, the
prosecutrix went to T.K. Gram, Fatehpur after disclosing the
above fact to her sister-in-law Phool Kumari (PW-5) and
reached there about 2:00 PM, where Nazrul Ansari was waiting
her. After some conversation with the prosecutrix, the
appellant left the place saying that he is going to manage a
motorcycle to go to Jamtara and asked her to wait till his
arrival. It is further alleged that the appellant returned that
place in the evening and requested her to stay over the night in
the forest quarter of his friend, Ram Payere Das (Forest Guard)
situated at village Muridih Salbagan and in the next day
morning, they will proceed to Jamtara. It is further alleged that
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.814 of 2006
2025:JHHC:10295
in the night, the appellant brought some food and both took
meal but at about 9:00 PM, the present appellant entered into
the room of the prosecutrix and sat on her cot and forcibly
committed rape upon her. It is further alleged that
subsequently the forest guard Ram Payere Das also committed
rape upon her. She was threatened to be killed by both the
accused persons, if she attempts to raise alarm or disclose the
incident to anyone. It is further alleged that after departure of
forest guard Ram Payere Das, the appellant again came inside
the room and committed rape upon her and on the next day
morning i.e. on 03.07.2003, brought her to Jamtara for
providing matriculation certificate and again sexually abused
and assaulted her. The appellant also obtained signature of the
prosecutrix on some plain paper and threatened her to take her
life, if she discloses the above incident to anyone. It is further
alleged that after commission of rape, the accused assured to
solemnize marriage with the prosecutrix, she remained silent
due to fear for a month, thereafter, disclosed the incident to her
parents and brother and lodged this case.
3. On the basis of above information, the FIR was registered for
the offence under sections 347/376 (G) of Indian Penal Code
against both the accused persons including present appellant.
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.814 of 2006
2025:JHHC:10295
After conclusion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was
submitted against both the accused persons and learned trial
court, after conclusion of trial, extending the benefit of doubt to
the accused, Ram Payree Das (forest guard) has acquitted him
but held the present appellant guilty for the offences under
sections 376 and 347 of IPC and sentenced him as stated above.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that
except the prosecutrix (P.W.4), all the witnesses are hearsay
witnesses. The testimony of the victim, who was already
married prior to the alleged occurrence is tainted with
falsehood. It is not proved by the prosecution that the victim
was literate and has ever attended any school and how she was
entitled for matriculation certificate. The aforesaid assurance
was also within the knowledge of the parents of the
prosecutrix, who have also consented in the matter. This false
case was instituted merely on the ground that the matriculation
certificate was not provided to the prosecutrix by the appellant.
The FIR was lodged after lapse of 34 days from the date of
alleged occurrence with due deliberation and concoction
without offering any reasonable explanation for such
inordinate delay. In the facts and circumstances of the case as
projected by the prosecution, mere impression of threat on
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.814 of 2006
2025:JHHC:10295
mind of prosecutrix allegedly extended by the appellant cannot
be a valid ground to be entertained. The prosecutrix has also
stated that the appellant assured her that he will solemnize
marriage with her but it is also not believable in as much as the
prosecutrix was already a married lady. The prosecution has
also failed to prove any place of occurrence where the said
forcible sexual assault was committed against the prosecutrix.
It is further submitted that on the basis of same evidence, other
co-accused, who happens to be forest guard has been acquitted.
It is utter surprising that the prosecutrix has given clean chit to
other co-accused in her evidence before the court. Therefore,
having tendency of false implication of the appellant
exonerating the other co-accused. There is no iota of evidence
to prove the commission of rape with the victim, and also does
not find corroboration from her medical examination report. It
is further submitted that it is an old case and the occurrence is
of the year 2003. The appellant has remained in custody during
trial about 1 ½ years and has sufficiently been punished.
Therefore, in alternative, it is prayed that his sentence may be
reduced to the imprisonment already undergone.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the State has vehemently refuted the aforesaid
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.814 of 2006
2025:JHHC:10295
contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and submitted
that the prosecution has reasonably explained the cause of
delay in lodging the FIR and in case of such ghastly offence,
threat to life extended to the prosecutrix as well as mental
trauma undergone by her due to such ghastly offence, the
delay, if any, cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution.
Learned trial court has taken into consideration all pros and
cons of the case and also considered the defence witness. The
material evidence appearing against the appellant has not been
controverted or rebutted in the cross-examination of the
prosecutrix. Admittedly, the medical examination of the victim
was conducted after 34 days, therefore, sign of rape could not
be found but there was evidence of sexual assault with the
victim. Learned trial court has very wisely concluded that there
is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the prosecutrix and
there was no occasion to falsely implicate the appellant for any
reason whatsoever. Therefore, there is no requirement of
corroborative evidence in the present case. Hence, there is no
illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order of
conviction and sentence of the appellant calling for any
interference in this appeal, which is fit to be dismissed.
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.814 of 2006
2025:JHHC:10295
6. For better appreciation of rival contentions, it is desirable to
apprise with the evidence adduced in this case. The most
important and sterling witness is P.W.4, the victim-cum-
prosecutrix. She has disclosed her age to be 18 years and stated
that on 30th June, 2003 at about 10:00 AM, while she was at her
village, then Nazrul Ansari asked her to provide Board
Certificate and also suggested her to come on 02nd July, 2003,
then they will go to Jamtara. Accordingly, she boarded a bus
and arrived at T.K. Gram on 02nd July, 2003, where Nazrul
Ansari was waiting her. She has further deposed that Nazrul
Ansari told her that he is going to bring a motorcycle from his
friend suggesting her to wait him till his arrival. She has further
deposed that Nazrul Ansari returned in the evening and
showed his inability to arrange motorcycle, hence, he told her
to stay at the house of his friend and in the next morning, they
will go to Jamtara. She along with Nazrul Ansari went to a
place but in that house no one was present in the room. She
was provided food and a folding cot. She sat on the cot and
started talking with Nazrul Ansari and in the course of talking,
he put off her all clothes and he also became naked and started
threatening her to kill, if she raised any alarm and committed
rape upon her. In the next day morning, she went to Jamtara
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.814 of 2006
2025:JHHC:10295
along with the accused Nazrul Ansari by a bus. She has further
deposed that when they arrived at Jamtara, the accused
obtained her signature on some plane papers and they also
walked hither and thither and took lunch in a hotel and in the
night, again she was brought to T.K. Gram and stayed in the
night and Nazrul Ansari again committed rape with her. When
this witness started weeping, the accused assured not to worry
as he will solemnize marriage with her. She has further
deposed that in the next day, she boarded a bus and returned
to her home and due to threatening given by the accused, she
did not disclose the above incident to her parents and other
family members. This witness was so depressed and thereby
she started a lonely life and in spite of request of her sister-in-
law, she did not disclose anything to her sister-in-law but
ultimately about after one month, she narrated the above story
to her mother. Thereafter, she went to police station and lodged
a written report, which beard her signature and marked as
Ext.2.
In her cross-examination, she has admitted that she
went to police station along with her brother and his friends.
She was staying outside and her brother and his friends were
writing the report, thereafter she was asked to sign on written
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.814 of 2006
2025:JHHC:10295
report, which was presented before police, the said report was
neither read over and explained to her nor she herself read the
contents of written report. This witness further admits that
about 7 years ago, she was married with one Bhim Soren but
she had never gone to her matrimonial home. She further states
that Ramchandra Barman of Fatehpur is the friend of her
brother and she calls him 'Jija Ji'. She has denied that
Ramchandra Barman has performed court marriage with her.
She also admits that in T.K. Gram, there is an old hospital but
she did not know that there is any residence of forester. In T.K.
Gram, she stayed the first night but in the second night, where
she was kept, she does not know. She further admits that she
was acquainted with Nazrul Ansari from three months prior to
the occurrence and he used to talk with her friends and she has
also seen while talking with her friends but she has declined to
disclose the name of any of her friends and she has also not
shared the alleged incident to any of her friends.
P.W.1 Robin Kumar Murmu is step brother of the
victim. According to his evidence, one month after the
occurrence, he came to know that Nazrul Ansari and Ram
Payree Das have committed rape with his sister. This fact was
disclosed to him by his sister. She also disclosed that in the
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.814 of 2006
2025:JHHC:10295
name of providing matriculation certification to her, Nazrul
Ansari called her to go to Jamtara. She was kept at T.K. Gram
forest for the night and both Nazrul Ansari and Ram Payare
Das committed rape upon her. After getting knowledge of
occurrence, he along with his sister went to police station
where he scribed written report, which was signed by him and
his sister and submitted it before the police station.
In cross-examination, this witness admits that prior to
this occurrence, the victim had never gone to any other place
and stayed overnight with any person. He persistently asked
his sister to tell where she has stayed for two nights and also
forced to disclose but she told nothing. He further admits that
when the victim did not disclose about any incident, then he
came to Muridih, Fatehpur and enquired and then he came to
know that one night, his sister stayed at T.K. Gram and one
night at the residence of forest guard. The fact was disclosed to
him by a hotel owner of Fatehpur, whose name, he does not
know. This witness further admits that just after two days of
returning of his sister, he traced out where she stayed for two
nights and he told his sister that she has stayed for two nights
at T.K. Gram at the residence of a forest guard, then she
disclosed that she was brought forcibly and compelled to stay
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.814 of 2006
2025:JHHC:10295
there by the accused and rape was committed with her. It is
also surprising that when this witness got knowledge of
incident just after two days from returning of his sister, he
lodged FIR after 25 days and in between 25 days, this witness
along with other friends Sama and Ramchandra Barma met
with Ram Payare Das but he denied that he asked any money
from Ram Payare Das. He also admits that on the second
occasion, when he visited to Ram Payare Das along with his
friends then Ram Payre Das did not talk with him. Thereafter,
this witness lodged this case. He has denied the suggestion of
defence that in order to extort money from the accused Ram
Payre Das, he has falsely implicated the accused persons in this
case.
P.W.2 Debishasar Murmu is the father of the victim.
According to him, the occurrence is dated July, 2003 and at that
time, his daughter was aged about 17 years. The wife of this
witness informed him that Nazrul Ansari has brought his
daughter out and kept her for one day. When his daughter
returned back to the house, this witness asked about spending
of last one day, she did not reply, then this witness reported the
matter before the police station. This witness was not
acquainted with Nazrul Ansari.
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.814 of 2006
2025:JHHC:10295
In cross-examination, this witness admits that his
daughter-victim had studied at 8th Class but he had no memory
about the year of admission of his daughter in the school and
the date of her birth. His daughter was aged about 18 years at
the time of occurrence. This witness was not acquainted with
Nazrul Ansair and there has no visitation of Nazrul Ansari to
his house.
P.W.3 Chabi Hansda is the mother of the victim.
According to her, about two years ago, Nazrul Ansari asked
her daughter to reach at T.K. Gram by boarding a bus and then
he brought her to Jamtara for taking examination of
matriculation. On assurance of Nazrul Ansari, her daughter
went with him and thereafter, she did not know about where
her daughter went. After two days, her daughter returned back
to the house but she was not eating properly and doing any
work. This witness scolded her daughter for not doing
anything properly, then she disclosed about the alleged
incident narrating that Nazrul Ansari had kept her in a house
for two days and forcibly committed rape with her without her
consent. After hearing the said incident, the case was lodged in
Fatehpur Police Station. This witness was acquainted with
Nazrul Ansari.
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.814 of 2006
2025:JHHC:10295
In cross-examination, this witness admits that before
marriage of this witness with her husband (P.W.2), her
husband has already married twice and the victim is her own
elder daughter. This witness further admits that the case was
instituted after one month of alleged occurrence. This witness
had been acquainted with Nazrul Ansari for 2-3 months and
her daughter was studying in 9th class but she dropped the
study before 4-5 months prior to the occurrence. Her daughter
has not given the exam of matriculation and it is admitted that
we are searching for matriculation certificate. None of the
villagers has provoked her to institute the case and it is not like
that to extort money, this case was lodged.
P.W.5 Phool Kumari is sister-in-law of the victim.
According to her evidence, the incident is of two year back,
when Nazrul Mian came to her house and told the victim to
provide her matriculation certificate, so she came to T.K. Gram.
This witness further deposed that the victim went to T.K. Gram
and when she returned after two days, this witness asked the
victim about spending of last two days but she replied nothing.
After one month, this witness came to know about abominable
act committed by Nazrul Mian with the victim. This witness is
known to Nazrul Mian.
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.814 of 2006
2025:JHHC:10295
In cross-examination, she states that she is sister-in-
law(bhabhi) of the victim and she talks each other. After one
month of returning from Jamtara, the victim revealed about
wrongful act done by Nazrul Mian with her. This witness
further admits that she is known to Ramchandra Berman of
Fatehpur and whenever this witness went to Fatehpur, she
talked with Ramchandra Barman. There was no visitation of
the victim to Ramchandra Barman. The police have recorded
the statement of this witness and she disclosed before the police
about commission of rape committed by two persons as
narrated by the victim herself to her. The victim did not
disclosed about the place of occurrence where the alleged
occurrence took place at T.K. Gram in the house of forester.
This witness has denied the suggestion of defence that the false
case has been lodged against the appellant to extort money.
P.W.6 Dr. Kumari Asha. According to her evidence, on
07.08.2003, she was posted on the post of Sub-Divisional
Hospital, Jamtara and was holding the post as a lady medical
Officer on deputation, she examined the victim at about 9:30
A.M and found following injuries:-
It is not possible to say that whether the rape has been
committed or not as the victim is married woman but at
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.814 of 2006
2025:JHHC:10295
present she is not living with her husband. Her vaginal swab
has been sent to Sadar Hospital, Dumka for microscopic
examination for confirmation of presence or absence of
spermatozoa (alive or dead). However, no foreign hair was
found on her private part. There appeared no injury on the
private part of the victim or any other part of her body. She was
aged about 20 years but for determination of the exact age of
the victim, the medical Board to be constituted. After receiving
the report regarding vaginal swab, which shows absence of
spermatozoa in the aforesaid vaginal swab. The medical report
bears the signature of this witness, which is marked as Ext.3.
The medical examination has been conducted upon the victim
on police requisition.
P.W.7 Om Prakash Shukla is the Investigating Officer.
According to his evidence, on 05.08.2003, the victim came to
Fatehpur O.P. along with her brother Robin Kumar Murmu
and submitted a written report before the police station. This
witness has visited the place of occurrence along with the
victim and her brother. The first place of occurrence is situated
in village Mauja Musidih near western side of Munagabani
pitch road at a distance of 15 feet and the government quarter
of two rooms of forest guard, Ram Payre Das. The door of one
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.814 of 2006
2025:JHHC:10295
room opens towards east side and the door of second room
opens towards west side. Both the rooms were locked. It was
disclosed that in the eastern side room fitted with window and
door, the occurrence took place on a folding cot. According to
this witness, the second place of occurrence, is a lonely place
situated at T.K. Gram, belonging to Seva Mandal, staff quarter
within Gaushala. In the backside of the room, there was an
open kitchen room. This witness has also proved the formal FIR
marked as Ext.5.
7. From the aforesaid discussion of oral testimony of witnesses, it
is crystal clear that the brother of the prosecutrix, namely,
Robin Kumar Murmu was quite instrumental in implicating the
appellant in this case. It is not in dispute that the victim girl
kept mum for 25 days after the alleged occurrence and
disclosed to none of the family members including her brother
(P.W.1) about the said incident and the reason has been
explained by her that due to fear, she did not disclose the above
incident. In the interval of above 25 days, P.W.1, the brother of
the victim looking his sister under depression was quite
anxious to know about the reason as to why she remained two
days outside of the home and in the course of his own enquiry,
P.W.1 came to know that appellant had enticed the victim to
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.814 of 2006
2025:JHHC:10295
provide matric certificate and in that pretext, the appellant had
called her outside the village at T.K. Gram and from where
brought her to residential quarter of Ram Payre Das and kept
her overnight and committed rape upon her. P.W.1 has also
come to know that Ram Payre Das had committed rape with
the victim but the present appellant was concealing himself.
Inspite of search by P.W.1 at his home village and other places
could not be found. Thereafter he along with his sister went to
police station and lodged the FIR. It is quite evident from the
testimony of prosecutrix P.W.4 that at the time of lodging FIR,
she was outside police station premises and her brother and his
friends Ramchandra Barman and others got the First
Information Report scribed and obtained her signature without
reading out and explaining the contents of the FIR to her and
lodged the report. She has clearly admitted that on her
statement, no report was registered and she was not
interrogated by the police at the time of lodging the written
report. Therefore, the prosecutrix appears to be tutored by her
brother (P.W.1) about the false story of providing matriculation
certificate to her. Although, the prosecutrix has studied up to
8th class only and it is also admitted by the mother of the
prosecutrix that they were desirous to get the matriculation
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.814 of 2006
2025:JHHC:10295
certificate of the prosecutrix. The appellant is not a teacher or
principal of any college nor he has capacity to procure the
matric certificate for the prosecutrix. It is also admitted that
prior to the date of occurrence, the prosecutrix was married
with another person but she had never gone to her matrimonial
home. It is also not the case of prosecution that there was love
affair between the prosecutrix and the appellant. From the
medical examination report, it is evident that no sign of rape
was found rather being a married lady, she was habitual to
sexual intercourse. It further appears that the Investigating
Officer has mentioned the place of occurrence i.e. village Mauja
Musidih near western side of Munagabani pitch road and the
government quarter of two rooms of Forest Guard, Ram Payre
Das but complete description of place of occurrence and the
room which was used for commission of rape has not been
properly proved. The overall evidence of witnesses including
the prosecutrix does not appear to be trustworthy and reliable
rather the story smells about false implication of the appellant
exonerating the co-accused Ram Payre Das whose forest
quarter has been alleged to be used for commission of offence.
The prosecutrix in her alleged written report has stated about
commission rape by the co-accused Ram Pyare Das but no
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.814 of 2006
2025:JHHC:10295
reason has been offered for denying his complicity in the
alleged offence. Therefore, the witnesses have tendency to
suppress the material facts. Learned trial court has miserably
failed to properly analyze and appreciate the aforesaid glaring
infirmities in the prosecution evidence and also the motive of
the brother of prosecutrix (P.W.1) to falsely implicate the
appellant. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of
conviction and sentence of the appellant is not justified under
law and is liable to be set aside.
8. Accordingly, the judgment and order of conviction dated
15.05.2006 and sentence dated 17.05.2006 passed by learned
Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Sessions Case No.101 of 2004 is
hereby, set aside and this appeal is allowed.
9. The appellant is on bail, hence, he is discharged from liability of
bail bond. The sureties are also discharged.
10. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly.
11. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be
sent back to the trial court for information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi
Dated: 03/04/2025
Pappu/- N.A.F.R.
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.814 of 2006
