Jharkhand High Court
Jai Prakash Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 April, 2025
2025:JHHC:12243
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.516 of 2006
------
[Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
30.01.2006 and 31.01.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Seraikella-
Kharsawan in S.T. No.136 of 2004 arising out of Nimdih P.S. Case
No.66 of 2004, G.R. Case No.769 of 2004]
------
Jai Prakash Singh, son of Sri Ram Chalitar Singh, resident of
village-Sikli, P.O. and P.S.-Chandil, District-Seraikella-Kharsawan
.... .... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Saibal Mitra, Advocate
Mr. Akshay Kumar Mahato, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, Spl. P.P.
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGEMENT
------
C.A.V. on 11.02.2025 Pronounced On: 24.04.2025
1. I have already heard the arguments advanced by
Mr. Saibal Mitra with Mr. Akshay Kumar Mahato,
learned counsels appearing for the appellant as well as
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.516 of 2006
2025:JHHC:12243
Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, learned Spl. P.P. appearing
for the State.
2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and
order of conviction and sentence dated 30.01.2006 and
31.01.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Seraikella-
Kharsawan in S.T. No.136 of 2004 whereby and
whereunder, the sole appellant has been held guilty for
the offences under Sections 366A and 376 of Indian Penal
Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years with fine
of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under section
366A of the I.P.C. and R.I. for 8 years with fine of
Rs.3,000/- for the offence punishable under section 376
of I.P.C. with default stipulation. Both the sentences
were directed to run concurrently.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal as per the
written report dated 23.10.2004, is that the prosecutrix
aged about 15 years, had gone to the matrimonial home
of her elder sister at Village Kadla and was staying there
since last one month owing to her illness and for
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.516 of 2006
2025:JHHC:12243
treatment. The prosecutrix was acquainted with the
present appellant Jai Prakash Singh prior to the
occurrence because he has also his relation adjacent to
the house of her elder sister and used to frequently visit
there and the accused appellant used to work in the
capacity of Munsi at Sikli in a brick kiln. It is further
alleged that on 16.10.2004 at about 09:30 A.M.
(Saturday), while the prosecutrix was alone in the house,
the accused came to the sister's house of the prosecutrix
and told that her mother is ill and asked her to
accompany him on motorcycle to visit her mother. The
prosecutrix relied upon the version of accused and
boarded on the motorcycle but instead of taking her to,
at her village, the accused was taking her towards
another road, then she asked him as to where he was
going with her ? Upon this, he replied that her mother
has been admitted in Tata Hospital at Jamshedpur and
he is going there. It is further alleged that instead of
taking her to Tata Hospital at Jamshedpur, the accused
brought her to unknown village and kept her confined in
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.516 of 2006
2025:JHHC:12243
a house and extended her threat of life and forcibly
committed rape on her continuously for six days. When
prosecutrix protested then she was slapped and
threatened of dire consequences and also assured to
solemnize marriage with her. It is further alleged that on
23.10.2004 at about 07:00 A.M., father, sister and brother-
in-law of the prosecutrix along with other co-villagers
arrived at the place where she was confined by the
accused and they caught hold of the accused who
disclosed his name as Jai Prakash Singh son of Charitra
Singh resident of Village Sikli, P.S. Chandil, District
Seraikella at Kharsawan. The prosecutrix and the
accused were brought to police station where she lodged
written report which was scribed by one Balram Gope
(P.W. 6) and after reading over the contents, she put her
signature.
On the basis of written report of the prosecutrix,
the F.I.R. being Nimdih P.S. Case No.66 of 2004 dated
23.10.2004 was registered for the offences under Sections
366A and 376 of I.P.C.
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.516 of 2006
2025:JHHC:12243
4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was
submitted against the accused. After taking cognizance
of the aforesaid offences, the case was committed to the
court of Sessions where S.T. No.136 of 2004 was
registered. The accused appellant denied from the
charges levelled against him and claimed to be tried.
5. After conclusion of trial, the impugned judgment and
order has been passed, which has been assailed in this
appeal.
6. In the course of trial, altogether 15 witnesses were
examined by the prosecution including the prosecutrix
as P.W.2.
7. Apart from oral testimony of witnesses, following
documentary evidence were also adduced by the
prosecution:
Exhibit 1 : School admit card
Exhibit 2 : Written report
Exhibit 2/1 : Victim signature on written
report
Exhibit 3 : Medical report of the victim
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.516 of 2006
2025:JHHC:12243
Exhibit 4 to 4/2 : Three X-ray plates
Exhibit 5 : Formal F.I.R.
Exhibit 6 : Endorsement on fardbeyan
for registration of case.
8. The case of defence is denial from occurrence and false
implication with a view to extort money from him as
pleaded by way of suggestion to witnesses. No oral or
documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence.
9. The learned Trial Court after evaluation of testimony of
witnesses and perusal of other materials available on
record hold the appellant guilty for the offences under
Sections 366A and 376 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him as
stated above.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the
prosecutrix has claimed to have been ravished by the
appellant for six consecutive days and she was wearing
the same clothes but her clothes were not seized and sent
to Forensic Science Laboratory for clinical examination
to detect any spots of semen and other materials. It is
further submitted that the medical report of the victim
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.516 of 2006
2025:JHHC:12243
girl categorically shows that there was no sign of
commission of rape with her and her age was below 18
which varies two years ± either side. The alleged admit
card of the victim girl produced in evidence (Ext.1) has
also not been proved by any competent witness and
cannot be relied upon. It is further submitted that the
learned Trial Court has failed to consider that victim was
missing from the house of her sister since 16.10.2004 but
F.I.R. was not promptly lodged rather after her recovery,
the F.I.R. has been lodged without explaining any cogent
reasons. It is further submitted that the learned Trial
Court has observed that it may be a case of consent but
convicted the accused on the sole ground of her age
being 15 years. There was no reason to hold the age of
the victim girl to be 15 years in absence of any cogent
and reliable evidence. The conviction of appellant for the
offence under Section 366A of the I.P.C. is absolutely
illegal in absence of fulfilment of ingredient thereof
against the appellant. Therefore, the learned Trial Court
has miserably failed to properly appreciate the evidence
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.516 of 2006
2025:JHHC:12243
available on record and hold the appellant guilty only on
the basis of conjecture and surmises as regards the age of
the victim. Hence, arrived at wrong conclusion about the
guilt of the appellant which is fit to be set aside allowing
this appeal.
In the alternative, it is submitted that during the
course of trial, the appellant remained in judicial custody
for 4 years and 3 months and at the time of hearing of
this appeal due to constant absence of the appellant and
his counsel to argue the appeal, the suspension of
sentence order was cancelled vide order dated
06.01.2025, consequently, the appellant was arrested and
is in judicial custody at present since 31.01.2025 and has
sufficiently been punished for his guilt. Therefore, his
sentence may be reduced to the imprisonment already
undergone.
11. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor
appearing for the State has submitted that the learned
trial court has properly appreciated the prosecution
evidence and there is no question of consent of the
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.516 of 2006
2025:JHHC:12243
victim since she was below 18 years of age. As such, the
argument of learned counsel for the appellant regarding
age of victim is not tenable at all. The school certificate of
the victim shows that on the date of occurrence, she was
above 14 but below 15 which has also been verified by
her medical examination report. Even if, it may be
assumed that she was 18 plus, there is no iota of
evidence to infer her consent for sexual intercourse. The
prosecution has conclusively proved that the appellant
has enticed her pretending illness of her mother and
taken away the prosecutrix-cum-victim and
continuously committed rape on her for six days in spite
of her protest and objection. The mere non-seizure of her
wearing clothes as well as observation made in the
medical examination report about no sign of rape cannot
be a basis for exonerating the appellant from such a
serious charge. The evidence of victim is wholly reliable.
The delay in lodging F.I.R. is also not substantial in this
case to disbelieve the prosecution case. Therefore,
conviction and sentence of the appellant suffers from no
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.516 of 2006
2025:JHHC:12243
illegality or infirmity calling for any interference in this
appeal. So far quantum of sentence is concerned, the
appellant has been awarded 8 years of rigorous
imprisonment along with fine of Rs.3,000/- which is
adequate in the facts and circumstances of the case and
requires no interference for such a heinous offence.
Therefore, this appeal is devoid of merit and fit to be
dismissed.
12. For better appreciation of respective arguments raised
on behalf of learned counsels, it is pertinent here to
apprise with the evidence adduced by respective parties
during the course of trial.
13. Altogether 15 witnesses were examined by prosecution.
The most important witness of the case is P.W.2
prosecutrix-cum-victim. According to her evidence,
since one month prior to date of occurrence, she was
residing at her elder sister matrimonial home due to her
illness in Village Kadla Gaon. On the date and time of
occurrence, she was alone in the house then appellant Jai
Prakash Singh came on a motorcycle and on pretext of
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.516 of 2006
2025:JHHC:12243
illness of her mother accompanied her to Village
Lupungdih. It is further stated that she was not brought
to Village Lupungdih to visit her mother but accused
further told her that he is going to Tata Hospital where
her mother was admitted but he did not go to Tata
rather brought to Village Tamolia and there kept
confined her in a room for six days and continuously
committed rape forcibly with her on all those days. She
has further deposed that on the sixth day, her brother,
father and other villagers along with her brother-in-law
came there and caught hold of the accused and she was
brought out to Police Station at Nimdih where she
lodged the F.I.R. marked Ext.2 and her signature is
Ext.2/1.
In her cross-examination also, she has remained
intact. Accused was already married and he used to visit
at his sister's house then she was acquainted with him.
She has also reiterated that the accused visited her on the
date of occurrence, while she was alone and advised to
go with him to see her ailing mother but she passed her
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.516 of 2006
2025:JHHC:12243
Village Lupungdih at about 12:00 p.m. then she asked to
stop the vehicle but the accused told him that he is going
to Jamshedpur because her mother is admitted in Tata
Hospital so that she could not raise any alarm. She has
also reiterated that due to threatening of life and
scolding her, she could not come out of the house where
she was confined. There is nothing else in her cross-
examination to disbelieve or discredit her testimony.
P.W.1 Gurubari Gope is elder sister of victim.
According to her evidence, on the date of occurrence,
victim girl was residing with her at her matrimonial
home and while she and her husband had gone to forest
for collecting woods and returned in the noon then
victim girl was not found. She has also proved the admit
card of the victim of Navodaya Vidyalaya, Lupungdih
showing her date of birth to be 12-06-1990. She has
further deposed that upon search of the victim, she came
to know that present appellant has taken her on
motorcycle ultimately came to know that the accused
has confined the victim girl at Village Tamolia where the
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.516 of 2006
2025:JHHC:12243
victim girl was found confined in a house of Jai Prakash
Singh both were apprehended and brought to Nimdih
Police Station. She also came to know from the victim
girl that the accused has committed rape with her on the
above all six days confining in the room. This witness
has also been cross-examined by defence but no material
has been elicited to discredit her above testimony.
P.W.3 Dev Charan Gope is brother-in-law of the
victim girl. He has also corroborated the prosecution
case to the extent that while he and his wife has gone to
collect the wood from jungle and the victim girl was
alone in the house, when they returned to home they did
not found the victim girl and after search, the victim girl
was found confined in a house at Village Tamolia by the
accused appellant who got apprehended and thereafter,
both were sent to Nimdih Police Station where the
victim girl has stated that the appellant had raped her
after confining her into the said house.
P.W.4 Jitu Gope is the father of the prosecutrix,
has disclosed the age of the victim girl to be 15 to 16
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.516 of 2006
2025:JHHC:12243
years. She was studying at Lupungdih School. He has
further deposed that in the month of Ashwin, on
Saturday at about 09:00 a.m., she was residing with her
elder sister at her matrimonial home in the absence of
her sister and brother-in-law, the accused J.P. Singh
kidnapped her on motorcycle. During search for six
days, found that the accused appellant had taken her to
his Village Tamolia. Thereafter, he reached the said
village and apprehended the accused J.P. Singh and
found that the victim girl was confined in a room. After
recovery, she disclosed that accused has committed rape
with her then both of them were sent to Nimdih Police
Station.
In his cross-examination, nothing elicited to
discredit his testimony.
P.W.5 Dr. Manorma Siddhesh is the medical
officer who has examined the prosecutrix and found her
age to be less than 18 years. She has further deposed that
she found evidence of sexual intercourse with the
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.516 of 2006
2025:JHHC:12243
prosecutrix but she did not find any living or dead
spermatozoa inside her vagina.
P.W.6 Balram Gope is a hearsay witness who came
to know from one Devcharan that on 16.10.2004, J.P.
Singh has kidnapped the victim girl who was residing at
her sister's house. He was also searching the victim girl.
Then on 22.10.2004, one Tapan Gope told that J.P. Singh
has kept the victim girl at Village Tamolia from where
the victim and accused were apprehended and produced
before the police. He has ascribed the written report on
disclosure by the victim girl which was read over and
explained to her and already marked Ext.2.
P.W.7 Rajendra Gope is the brother of victim girl.
On 16.10.2004 his brother-in-law came to his Village
Lupungdih and told that Jai Prakash Singh had
kidnapped the victim girl. In course of search after six
days, he came to know that victim has been kept by the
accused at Village Tamolia. Thereafter, he went there
along with other persons and found the prosecutrix
confined in a house. They caught hold of the accused
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.516 of 2006
2025:JHHC:12243
and also recovered the prosecutrix and brought them to
Nimdih Police Station.
Nothing in his cross-examination to disbelieve his
testimony.
P.W.8 Ram Charan Gope is the elder brother of
brother-in-law of the victim girl. He has also deposed
that victim girl was residing at her elder sister's house.
He is elder brother of her brother-in-law Dev Charan
Gope. On the date of occurrence, victim was alone in the
house his younger brother and his wife had gone to
jungle. He has further stated that he had seen that Jai
Prakash Singh was taking her (the victim) on a
motorcycle and later on had heard that he has kept
confined the victim in his house.
There is nothing else in his cross-examination to
disbelieve or discard his testimony.
P.W.9 Shiv Charan Gope is the brother of Dev
Charan Gope, has also stated that he is neighbor of Dev
Charan Gope in whose house the victim girl was
residing on the date of occurrence. He saw that on a
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.516 of 2006
2025:JHHC:12243
motorcycle, the victim girl was taken away by Jai
Prakash Singh. When his brother Dev Charan Gope and
his wife returned then he disclosed that Jai Prakash
Singh has taken away the victim girl.
There is nothing else in his cross-examination to
rebut the above testimony.
P.W.10 Manju Gope is a hearsay witness from
from Shiv Charan Gope (P.W.9) that Jai Prakash Singh
has taken away the victim girl on motorcycle. It is also
disclosed that appellant was working as a Munsi in a
brick kiln.
P.W.11 Dhananjay Singh is the Investigating
Officer of this case. According to his evidence on
23.10.2004, he was Officer-In-Charge of Nimdih Police
Station. On that day at about 15:20, the prosecutrix and
her family members came to police station and a written
report was lodged by the prosecutrix. On the basis of
which, Nimdih Police Station Case No.66/2004 was
registered for the offences under Sections 366A and 376
of the I.P.C. He has proved formal F.I.R. as Ext.5 and
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.516 of 2006
2025:JHHC:12243
endorsement on written report as Ext.6. He has further
deposed that the accused Jai Prakash Singh was also
produced by the family members of the prosecutrix and
he was taken into formal custody. He recorded the
restatement of victim girl and other witnesses of this
case namely Guruwari Gope, Deocharan Gope and Jitu
Gope etc. He also interrogated with the accused but he
did not pleaded his guilt. He also went to Village
Lupungdih and interrogated with Rajendra Gope and
Balram Gope. He visited the first place of occurrence on
25.10.2004 at Village Kadla which is katcha house of
Deocharan Gope from this house the victim was
kidnapped by the accused on motorcycle. He visited the
second place of occurrence on 26.10.2004 which is
Village Tamolia in the house of Md. Samsuddin having
several rooms. In one room, accused was residing. He
also recorded evidence of Md. Samsuddin, Manoj Singh,
Sukurmuni, Chhotu Kalindi etc. and sent the victim girl
for medical examination and also received the medical
examination report of the victim. After conclusion of
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.516 of 2006
2025:JHHC:12243
investigation, he submitted charge-sheet against the
accused for the aforesaid offences.
In his cross-examination, he has admitted that
during the course of investigation, the clothe of victim
girl was not seized by him. He also admits that after
recovery of the victim girl, case was lodged. He has also
stated that the witness Sukurmuni of Village Tamolia
told that victim girl along with the accused were
apprehended from Village Tamolia. Other local villagers
also corroborated the above story. He has also prepared
the sketch map of the second place of occurrence which
is mentioned at para 41 of the case diary. There is
nothing else in his cross-examination to discredit his
testimony.
P.W.12 Md. Samsuddin has been declared hostile
by the prosecution. Although, he has admitted that
appellant J.P. Singh was working in his brick kiln as a
Munsi and also admitted that the accused was residing
at Village Tamolia. The accused J.P. Singh was a married
person having children. He has also heard that the
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.516 of 2006
2025:JHHC:12243
accused had kept a girl in his rented room. This witness
has been declared hostile only on the point that in his
statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. He has
disclosed that the accused informed to this witness that
he has married with the prosecutrix and the accused was
questioned as to how he has kept this girl in spite of his
marriage and with another lady. Thereafter, he came to
know that accused has kidnapped the victim girl.
P.W.13 Sukurmuni is wife of truck driver in the
brick kiln of Md. Samsuddin (P.W.12). She has deposed
that accused J.P. Singh was working as a Munsi in the
brick kiln of Md. Samsuddin. He is married and having
children. Some days ago, he kidnapped a girl and was
residing with her, when this witness asked him about
the identity of the girl then he disclosed that she is his
wife. Thereafter, the girl was recovered from his house
by her relatives. She has further stated that she was
interrogated by Police and she disclosed all the facts to
the Police.
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.516 of 2006
2025:JHHC:12243
P.W.14 Chhotu Kalindi is cleaner of truck of Md.
Samsuddin (P.W.12). He has also disclosed that J.P.
Singh was working as a Munsi in the brick kiln of his
employer Md. Samsuddin. He has further deposed that
the accused kidnapped the girl and was residing with
her in the rented house disclosing her as his wife.
Thereafter, he was apprehended by villagers and family
members of the victim girl and brought to police station.
This witness has also been declared hostile. This witness
has also been declared hostile. He has denied any
statement recorded by Police under Section 161 of the
Cr.P.C. Hence, he was declared hostile. But his aforesaid
testimony has not been remitted in his cross-
examination.
P.W.15 Manoj Singh has been tendered by the
prosecution and spread no knowledge about the
occurrence.
14. So far charge under section 366A is concerned, relevant
provision is extracted hereunder:
366A. Procuration of minor girl.--
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.516 of 2006
2025:JHHC:12243
Whoever, by any means whatsoever, induces any minor
girl under the age of eighteen years to go from any place
or to do any act with intent that such girl may be, or
knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced
to illicit intercourse with another person shall be
punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine.
From bare perusal of above provision to attract
Section 366A, essential ingredients are (1) that the
accused induced a girl; (2) that the person induced was a
girl under the age of eighteen years; (3) that the accused
has induced her with intent that she may be or knowing
that it is likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit
intercourse; (4) such intercourse must be with a person
other than the accused; (5) that the inducement caused the
girl to go from any place or to do any act.
15. In the instant case, so far conviction of the appellant for
the offence under Section 366A of the I.P.C. is concerned
in the factual aspects of the case as discussed above, the
ingredients of offence under Section 366A of the I.P.C. is
absolutely lacking in this case in as much as there was no
procuration of minor girl with intention that she would
be forced and seduced to illicit intercourse with some
other person. In the instant case, the accused himself is
alleged to have induced the minor girl and taken her
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.516 of 2006
2025:JHHC:12243
away with intention to establish sexual intercourse with
her.
16. The court is conscious to deal with the cumulative effect
of the materials facts proved against the appellant in
order to ascertain his criminality. Here in this case, the
minor girl under the age of 18 years has been
induced/enticed to go away from the custody of lawful
guardian. The involvement of the appellant is
categorically proved that he has come on a motorcycle
and on pretext of illness of her mother, accompanied her
(the victim) to Village Lupungdih but she was not
brought to Village Lupungdih to visit her mother and
told her that he is going to Tata Hospital where her
mother was admitted but he did not go to Tata rather
brought to Village Tamolia and kept her confined there
in a room for six days and continuously committed rape
forcibly with her on all those days. Therefore, the offence
punishable under Section 363 of the IPC is well proved
against the appellant.
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.516 of 2006
2025:JHHC:12243
In view of the above discussion and reasons, the
conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence
under Section 366A of the IPC is set aside and he is held
guilty for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the
IPC.
17. So far as the offence of rape punishable under Section
376 of the I.P.C. is concerned, in this regard, evidence of
victim is very important. P.W.2 (prosecutrix-cum-victim)
specifically stated in her examination-in-chief that she
was taken to unknown village and confined her and
appellant had sexual intercourse with her against her
will. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of
prosecutrix-cum-victim girl. In reply to the suggestion
that the appellant did not have sexual intercourse
against her will, the victim girl has categorically denied
the same.
The admitted case is that the appellant had sexual
intercourse with the prosecutrix-cum-victim girl for
which, considering her age, conviction under Section 376
of the I.P.C. is hereby upheld.
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.516 of 2006
2025:JHHC:12243
18. So far as alternative plea of the appellant regarding
reduction of sentence is concerned, the factual aspects of
the case as brought on record clearly goes to reveal that
the victim is a minor girl and for such type of heinous
offence, the appellant has been convicted to only
minimum sentence. No appeal has been preferred by
prosecution for enhancement of sentence. Therefore,
there is no mitigating circumstance to take leniency in
the matter of sentence in favour of the appellant.
19. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the conviction
of the appellant for the offence under Section 366A of the
I.P.C. is set aside and he is held guilty for the offence
under Section 363 of the I.P.C. but his conviction for the
offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. is maintained and
upheld. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned,
no interference is warranted in view of gravity of offence
committed by the appellant. However, no separate
sentence for offence under Section 363 of the I.P.C. is
being awarded to appellant.
20. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.516 of 2006
2025:JHHC:12243
21. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also dismissed accordingly.
22. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court
Record be sent back to the trial court for information and
needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi
Dated: 24/04/2025
Sachin/- N.A.F.R.
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.516 of 2006
