Jharkhand High Court

Murli Gope vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 April, 2025

Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

                            Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:10809-DB )



                   Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 283 of 2019
         (Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence
         dated 10.08.2018 (sentence passed on 13.08.2018) passed by
         Sri Rama Kant Mishra, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I,
         West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in G.R. (POCSO) Case No.
         37/2017.)

         Murli Gope, S/o Rauto Gope, R/o Kada Jamda, P.O. + P.S.-
         Noamundi, Dist.- West Singhbhum, Chaibasa
                                           ...         Appellant
                                  Versus

         The State of Jharkhand.                   ...       Respondent
                                    ----
                               PRESENT
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
                                  ----
         For the Appellant  : Mr. Manoj Kumar Choubey, Adv.
         For the Respondent : Mr. Nawin Kr. Singh, A.P.P.
                                  ----
     CAV on : 17/01/2025            Pronounced on : 08/04/2025
Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. :

1. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Nawin Kumar Singh, learned A.P.P.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 10.08.2018 (sentence passed on 13.08.2018) passed by Sri Rama Kant Mishra, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in connection with G.R. (POCSO) Case No. 37/2017, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 366A IPC, 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 4/6 POCSO Act and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 8 years along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 366A IPC and in default in payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one- year, rigorous imprisonment for 12 years and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(i) IPC and in default in payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:10809-DB )

3. The prosecution case arises out of written report by victim "X" in which it has been stated that she stays with her sisters Nandi Purty and Laxmi Purty. On 22.12.2017, a party was going on in the house of the neighbour of the prosecutrix, Satrudhan Gope and the prosecutrix was in charge of the food being served to the guests. At about 8:00PM, after answering the call of nature, the prosecutrix was returning home when she was confronted by Murli Gope (appellant), who offered her to go to Barbil and the prosecutrix readily agreed. It has been alleged that the accused, by enticing the prosecutrix, took her to his in-laws' place at Munga Dighia at 10:00PM, and on the pretext that his in-laws are sleeping, the accused made a bed out of paddy straw below a Kendu tree and when she slept, the accused committed rape upon her and threatened her not to disclose such incident to anyone. In the next morning, the prosecutrix was taken to Barbil where she went around some places and on the next day, she was brought back home by the accused. The prosecutrix had later on disclosed about the incident to her sister Laxmi Purty and thereafter, the issue was raised before the Munda, who had brought her to the Police Station where the written report was submitted.

Based on the aforesaid allegations, Noamundi P.S. Case No. 39/2017 was instituted against Murli Gope. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken. Charge was framed against the accused under Section 366A, 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 4/6 POCSO Act which was read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses in support of its case:

P.W.1 Victim "X" has stated that a party was going on in the house of Satrudhan Gope and she and the others were busy till 8:00PM in feeding the guests. When she was leaving for her house, Murli Gope offered her to take her to Barbil and, by enticing her, had taken her to Munga Dighiya. They reached at around 10:00PM and the accused on the pretext that it was late at night, put paddy straw

2|Page Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:10809-DB )

beneath a Kendu tree and as she was going to sleep, he committed rape upon her and threatened her not to disclose the incident anywhere. In the morning, Murli Gope took her to Danguaposi Railway Station from where they went to Barbil and after going around Barbil, she was brought back to her village by Murli Gope. The incident was reported by her to her sister Laxmi Purty, who in turn informed the Munda of the village who had accompanied both the sisters to the Police Station where she had submitted a written report. She has proved her signature in the 164 Cr.P.C. statement which has been marked as Exhibit-2. She has proved her signature in the written report which has been marked as Exhibit-1.

In cross-examination, she has deposed that Murli Gope belongs to her village. There was no one in the vicinity, when Murli Gope was conversing with her. She had gone to Barbil with the accused voluntarily. She had given her 164 Cr.P.C. statement based on what had been stated to her by her sister and the Police.

P.W.2 Laxmi Purty has stated that the incident is of 6-7 months back. There was a party in the house of Satrudhan Gope and her sister "X" was feeding the guests. In the night, her sister did not return home and she came back after two days and disclosed that Murli Gope had enticed her on the pretext of taking her to Barbil, but instead had taken her to his in-laws' place and committed rape upon her beneath a Kendu tree. She was thereafter taken to Barbil and after going around Barbil, had returned her to her village. This information was given by her to the Munda, who had taken her sister to the Police Station where the case was instituted. She has proved her signature in the written report which has been marked as Exhibit-1/1.

In cross-examination, she has deposed that none of the occurrence had taken place in her presence.

P.W.3 Dr. Chandrawati Boipai was posted as a Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa and on 26.12.2017, she had examined the prosecutrix "X" and had found the following:

(i) Marks of identification: - (a) Right thumb a black mole., (b) Right knee old wound scar.

3|Page Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:10809-DB )

(ii) General Examination- Complexion dark body built- average, Height- 4ft. 10 inches, Teeth- UT-

14, LT-14, Weight- 43kg. Secondary sex characters- Breast developed, axillary hair, scanty pubic hair present.

(iii) M/V- No mark of violence found on the body or private part.

(iv) M/H- Menstrual history as per victim's- 4th, 5th-

12-2017.

                (v)     Per abdomen examination- soft.
                (vi)    Pregnancy test- Urine test HCG test then at MCH

Sadar Hospital Chaibasa report in negative.

(vii) Per vaginal examination- Hymen old ruptured, no tenderness, no redness.

(viii) Vaginal swab taken and sent to DPH Lab Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa for microscopic examination reported by Dr. S. Malik (Pathologist) on 26.12.2017. No spermatozoa found dead or alive.

(ix) X-ray advised; X-ray done at doctor's X-ray Chaibasa on 26.12.2017. X-ray reported by radiologist Dr. Karshma Pingua Sadar Hospital Chaibasa on 27.12.2017 as follows: -

X-ray elbow joint A.P. view - secondary ossification center at lower end of humerus and upper end of radius and ulna are fused, X-ray wrist A.P. view- ossification of pisiform bone has occeved, X-ray pelvis AP view- secondary ossification center at iliac crest are not fused. Opinion- around 12 years of age.

It was opined that sexual intercourse had taken place. There were no marks of violence and foreign particles found in the private part or body of the victim. The age has been assessed to be around 12 years. She has proved the report which has been marked as

4|Page Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:10809-DB )

Exhibit-3.

In cross-examination, she has denied that the medical report discloses the real age of the victim.

P.W.4 Neeta Gope has stated that there was a party in the house of Satrudhan Gope where Murli Gope was also present. The prosecutrix "X" and she were feeding the guests. After the party ended, Murli had taken away the prosecutrix. She had seen Murli Gope and the prosecutrix conversing. The prosecutrix had disclosed that Murli Gope had enticed her away to Munga Dighiya and had committed rape upon her.

In cross-examination, she has deposed that she had not seen the accused taking away the prosecutrix.

P.W.5 Satrudhan Gope has stated that he had thrown a party on account of the birth of a son. Neeta Gope and the prosecutrix were feeding the guests. Murli Gope had also come to the party. The elder sister of the prosecutrix, Laxmi Purty, had disclosed to him that Murli Gope had taken the prosecutrix to Munga Dighiya, where she was subjected to rape. He has stated that Murli Gope had fled away from the village when the Munda had reprimanded him.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that Murli Gope is his younger brother. He has no knowledge about the case which has been instituted.

P.W.6 Lakhan Gope has stated that he had heard about the commission of rape upon the prosecutrix by Murli Gope.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that whatever has been stated by him is on the basis of hearsay.

P.W.7 Mahendra Purty is the village Munda, who has stated that Laxmi Purty had disclosed to him about her sister being subjected to rape by Murli Gope. At this information, he went to the house of the victim, who disclosed about the commission of rape. He has proved the written report written by him on the dictation of the victim which has been marked as Exhibit-1/2.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not witnessed the incident.

5|Page Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:10809-DB )

P.W.8 Brijlal Ram was posted as an Officer-in-Charge of Noamundi P.S. and on 25.12.2017, the victim "X" had given a written report on the basis of which, Noamundi P.S. Case No. 39/2017 was instituted. He had taken over the investigation of the case. He has proved the formal FIR which has been marked as Exhibit-4. In course of investigation, he had recorded the restatement of the victim and had sent the victim to the hospital for medical examination. He had inspected the place of occurrence which is about 30 meters from the back of the house of Gangaram Bobeya near a Kendu tree in village Munga Dighiya. Some paddy was found laid out beneath the Kendu tree and this was the place where the rape was said to have been committed. He had recorded the statement of Laxmi Purty and Mahendra Purty. The second place of occurrence is an open field situated about 50 miles from the house of Satrudhan Gope in which the victim was said to have been enticed away by the accused. He had also recorded the statement of Neeta Gope, Satrudhan Gope and Lakhan Gope and all had supported the prosecution case. He had also got recorded the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim before the Judicial Magistrate. He had recorded the statements of Sonaram Gope and Krishna Purty and also received the medical report of the victim and on the basis of the supervision note of the superior authority, he had submitted charge sheet.

In cross examination, he has deposed that he had not seized the clothes of the victim.

P.W.9 Shivam Chourasia was posted as a Judicial Magistrate 1st Class at Chaibasa and on 02.01.2018, he had recorded the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the prosecutrix on the orders of the Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (POCSO). He has proved the 164 Cr.P.C. statement which has been marked as Exhibit-5.

5. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which the accused has denied his complicity in the commission of the offence.

6. Submission has been advanced by Mr. Manoj Kumar Choubey, learned counsel for the appellant that as per the own admission of

6|Page Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:10809-DB )

P.W.1, she had voluntarily accompanied the appellant to Barbil without informing any of her family members which would clearly depict that there was a love affair between the appellant and the victim. There has been a delay in the institution of the First Information Report and no plausible explanation has been furnished for such delay. It has been submitted that the age of the victim has not been properly assessed by the concerned doctor.

7. Mr. Nawin Kumar Singh, learned A.P.P. has stated that the evidence of P.W.1 is supported by the medical report which speaks of sexual intercourse having taken place.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides and have also perused the trial court records.

9. As per the allegations, the initial act of enticement had started after the victim "X" had done her duty of feeding the guests in the house of Satrudhan Gope. The offer to go and visit Barbil was acceptable to the victim, but the same turned into a nightmare on account of the victim being subjected to rape by the appellant beneath a Kendu tree. The written report of the victim has been fully supported by her, in her evidence as P.W.1. There has been no exaggeration in the evidence of P.W.1 and no contradictions has been elicited from her, by the defence. Although it has been submitted that the act on the part of the victim was voluntary, but the same is negated simply on account of the fact that as per the ossification test, the age of the victim has been assessed to be around twelve years. The medical report further reveals that sexual intercourse had taken place and the hymen was already ruptured. The medical report, therefore, confirms about the commission of rape upon the victim who is admittedly a minor, apart from the fact that the evidence of P.W.1 categorizes the appellant as the person who had committed rape upon the victim. The presence of the appellant in the party organized by Satrudhan Gope is well established as even Satrudhan Gope (P.W.5) has stated so, being the brother of the appellant. P.W.4 was one of the persons along with the victim feeding the guests of Satrudhan Gope and she has stated about seeing the appellant conversing with the victim. The

7|Page Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:10809-DB )

Investigating Officer (P.W.8) had inspected the place of occurrence and had found presence of paddy straw beneath the kendu tree which furthermore leads credence to the case of the prosecution. The learned trial court has considered the entire facets of the case while convicting the appellant. We do not find any reasons to differ with such finding and consequently, we dismiss this appeal.