Jharkhand High Court
Kamleshwar Xalxo @ Kamla Oraon vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 August, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
2025:JHHC:25109-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OFJHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.Appeal (D.B.) No. 473 of 2001
[Against the judgment dated 22.08.2001 and order dated
23.08.2001 passed by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge,
Gumla in Sessions Trial No. 300 of 1995]
Kamleshwar Xalxo @ Kamla Oraon, Son of Sri Budhu Oraon
resident of Village- Chhuglu, Parkitolli, Police Station and
District- Gumla. .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
--------
For the Appellant : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, A.P.P.
PRESENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
---------
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. On 14.08.2025 Pronounced On:25/08/2025
Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava. J.
1. Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar learned counsel for the appellant
as well as Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the State.
2. Instant criminal appeal is preferred by above named
appellant for setting aside his judgment of conviction dated
22.08.2001 and order of sentence dated 23.08.2001 passed
by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla in S.T. No.
300/1995 whereby and whereunder the appellant held
guilty for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
10 years along with fine of Rs.2000/- with default
stipulation.
Page | 1
2025:JHHC:25109-DB
Factual Matrix
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on
01.08.1995 when the informant was returning from the
weekly market along with her friend and as they got down
from the vehicle near the village and proceeded towards
their house, they saw that the appellant who was a
co-villager was taking haria in Bhathi situated behind a
brick-kiln. When they reached a bit ahead the accused
intercepted the victim and her friend forcibly and
threatened the friend of the victim to flee away from the
spot. It is further alleged that the appellant took the victim
near the banyan tree about 10:00 PM at night and forcibly
raped her by giving threat to her life. It is also alleged that
the victim was taken to Oratoli village where she was kept
for some days, and repeatedly raped by the appellant and
on the next day morning she was left to her village by the
appellant. Thereafter, the victim narrated the whole story to
her family members and ultimately reported to police.
4. On the basis of the statement of the victim/informant,
F.I.R. was registered as Gumla P.S. Case No. 153 of 1995
corresponding to G.R. Case No. 523 of 1995 for the offence
under Section 376 of the I.P.C. After investigation the
police submitted charge-sheet against accused appellant.
After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the
court of Sessions. Later on, charge was framed and read-
Page | 2
2025:JHHC:25109-DB
over and explained to accused to which he pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of trial,
impugned judgment and order was passed which has been
assailed in this criminal appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly admits that as per
evidence of victim girl and other eye-witnesses examined in
this case and medical report of the victim girl the allegation
of rape against the appellant has been established. The
occurrence is of the year 1995. The appellant was arrested
and remanded to judicial custody on 05.08.1995 and
throughout the trial of the case, till the judgment in
Sessions Trial No. 300/1995 was passed, he was all along
in custody till the instant appeal preferred before Hon'ble
High Court. The appellant was directed to be released on
bail vide order dated 29.01.2002 and thereafter he was
released. As such appellant has remained in custody 7
years approximately out of 10 years of imprisonment
awarded to him. Therefore, without touching the merits of
the impugned judgment, the learned counsel for the
appellant has confined himself towards quantum of
sentence and prays to reduce the same to the extent of
imprisonment already undergone during trial of the case
and post-conviction. It is further submitted that at the time
of commission of alleged offence, the age of the appellant
was 20 years; he has been settled himself in mainstream of
Page | 3
2025:JHHC:25109-DB
life. It was his first offence and he has not indulged in any
other crime even after conviction in this case. Therefore,
sentence of the appellant may be reduced to the
imprisonment already undergone.
6. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State
has vehemently opposed and submitted that the appellant
has been held guilty and sentenced for very serious and
heinous offence of commission of rape with a minor girl
aged about 15 years. Therefore, he does not deserve any
leniency in the matter of sentence.
7. We have gone through the record of the case along with
impugned judgment in the light of the submissions made
by learned counsels for the respective parties. We find that
the appellant has been held guilty for commission of rape
with a minor girl aged about 15 years while she had gone
to market along with her friend and returning to her home,
the appellant visited her and threatened another girl to flee
away and took this victim towards lonely place and
committed rape on her. The occurrence is of the year 1995.
The appellant is remained in custody for approximately 07
years out of 10 years rigorous imprisonment awarded to
him. The appellant is also on bail since more than two
decades. No indulgence in any other criminal activities
since the grant of bail has been brought on record. We also
find that both the parties victim as well as the appellant
Page | 4
2025:JHHC:25109-DB
have settled in their life and the appellant has also mend
himself in the mainstream of life, therefore, directing the
appellant to serve the rest of the imprisonment awarded to
him would serve no useful purpose as a matter of deterrent
in this particular case. Considering overall aspects of the
case, circumstances of the victim as well as the appellant
and the materials available on record, the conviction of the
appellant for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. is
upheld, but so far as the sentence is concerned, the same
is reduced to the extent of imprisonment already
undergone in place of rigorous imprisonment of 10 years as
awarded by the learned trial court.
8. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits with
modification in sentence as stated above.
9. Appellant is on bail, hence, he is discharged from the
liability of bail bond and sureties are also discharged.
10. I.A. if any stands disposed of.
11. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court records
be send back to the court concerned for information and
needful.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi
Date:25/08/2025
Amar/- N.A.F.R.
Page | 5
