Jharkhand High Court
Trilok Munduiya Son Of Balkrishan ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 July, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Ambuj Nath
2025:JHHC:17655-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.695 of 2016
Trilok Munduiya son of Balkrishan Munduiya, resident of village
Titilepy, P.O. and P.S. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum.
----- Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ----- Respondent
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
-------
For the Appellant : Ms. Nalini Jha, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl.P.P.
-------
CAV JUDGMENT
Dated: 01/07/ 2025
R.Mukhopadhyay,J. Heard Ms. Nalini Jha, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Learned Special PP.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and
order of conviction and sentence dated 05.02.2016 (sentence
passed on 08.02.2016) passed by Sri Rajnandan Rai, learned 1st
Additional Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in S.T.
No. 102/09, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been
convicted for the offence under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC and has
been subjected to rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine
of Rs.20,000 and in default in payment of fine, to undergo
further simple imprisonment for 6 months.
3. The prosecution case arises out of the Fardbayan of
Sukhlal Sawaiya recorded on 13.02.2009 in which it has been
stated that on 11.02.2009 at 8.00 pm a cricket match was being
telecast in television and the same was being watched by the
neighbours and family members of the informant. The informant
was in his shop and after closing the shop at 8.30 pm he came
back home and started watching television and also having his
dinner. After having his dinner the informant started searching
for his daughter but she could not be found. When the informant
asked his wife Damyanti Sawaiya, she replied that her daughter
has been sent to purchase cigarette by Trilok Munduiya
(appellant). The informant and his wife thereafter started
searching for their daughter but she could not be found. When
the informant was standing in front of his gate and was looking
hither and thither in search of his daughter, he saw his daughter
coming running and she was also weeping. When the informant
and his wife asked their daughter as to where she had gone, it
was replied that Trilok Munduiya had sent her to purchase
cigarette but the shop was closed and when she returned, Trilok
Munduiya stopped her at the door, picked her up on his lap and
took her away towards the railway line and started kissing her.
He had done wrong things with her. Trilok Munduiya had also
threatened the daughter of the informant not to disclose about
the incident to anyone. She somehow managed to escape and
returned to the house.
Based on the aforesaid allegations, Mahila P.S. Case
No. 09 of 2009 was instituted under Section 376 IPC. On
completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted and after
cognizance was taken the case was committed to the court of
sessions where it was registered as S.T. No. 102 of 2009. Charge
was framed against the accused under Section 376(2)(f) IPC
which was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution has examined as many as 10
witnesses in support of its case.
5. P.W.1 the victim 'X' has identified the accused in the
dock as Trilok Munduiya. She has stated that the accused had
given her Rs. 10/- in presence of her mother to bring cigarette
from the market. She had gone to the shop to purchase cigarette
but the shop was closed. She, accordingly, returned to her house
and found the accused standing near the door of the courtyard.
The accused had caught hold of her, took her in his lap and went
towards the railway line where he put her on the ground and
climbed over her. When she started crying, he put his hand on
his mouth and did wrong things with her. When she once again
started crying, the accused left her and she ran and came back
to her house. She saw her parents standing near the door and
she disclosed the entire incident to them. The incident was
informed by her father to the Munda of the village and thereafter
she and her father had accompanied the Munda to the police
station and disclosed about the incident to the police. She has
proved her signature on the Fardbayan which has been marked
as Exhibit-1.
In cross-examination she has deposed that the house
of Trilok Munduiya is in front of her house. Trilok Munduiya
sometimes used to come to her house to watch TV. When she
was sitting with her mother, Trilok Munduiya had come and had
asked her to bring cigarette by giving her Rs. 10/- and told her
to have anything for Rs. 2/-. Since she could not get the cigarette
as the shop was closed, she returned when Trilok Munduiya had
taken her on his lap. She had not raised any cry of alarm. No
inmates of the house had seen Trilok Munduiya picking her up
on his lap.
6. P.W.2 Damyanti Sawaiya is the mother of the victim
who has stated that it was evening and a television was running
in the room in which a cricket match was being telecast. The
cricket match was being watched by all the family members as
well as the neighbours which included Trilok Munduiya. In
course of watching television Trilok Munduiya had asked her
daughter (victim X) to bring cigarette for which money was given
and he had also given her Rs. 2/- extra to buy anything of her
choice. When her daughter had gone to purchase cigarettes she
was cooking. Her husband had come home at 8.00 pm after
closing his shop and in course of dinner it was detected that her
daughter was not in the house and Trilok Munduiya had also
left. She and her husband started searching for their daughter in
the neighbourhood but she could not be found and when she
was standing near the gate her daughter was seen coming
weeping who disclosed that Trilok Munduiya had taken her on
his lap towards the railway line and he had done an illegal act
with her. When her daughter was disclosing about the incident
Trilok Munduiya had come and he was caught by her husband
and brother-in-law who started assaulting him but Trilok
Munduiya had escaped.
In cross-examination she has deposed that her
statement was recorded by the police. On the date of occurrence
about 6-7 persons of the locality were watching the cricket
match on TV in her home. There was no land dispute between
her husband and Trilok Munduiya. The relationships of both the
families were cordial. There were no signs of injury on the body
of her daughter.
7. P.W.3 Dapra Sawaiya has stated that at 8.00 pm he
was sitting in the house of his elder brother Sukhlal Sawaiya
watching a cricket match on television. The match was being
watched by a few villagers, Sukhlal Sawaiya, Damyanti Sawaiya
and Gosa Sawaiya. In course of watching the television, Trilok
Munduiya had sent his niece (Victim X) to the shop to purchase
cigarette and Trilok Munduiya was waiting outside. He has
stated that at 8.30 pm Victim X came weeping and disclosed that
Trilok Munduiya had taken her towards the railway station and
after opening her pant, had done a wrong thing with her. He had
thereafter returned to his house and had gone to the police
station after two days.
In cross-examination he has deposed that his
statement was recorded by the police. He had not seen any
injuries on the person of Victim X. There never was any dispute
with the family of Trilok Munduiya.
8. P.W.4 Lakshmi Sawaiya has stated that the
information about the incident was given to her by the mother of
the victim. A Panchayati was held in the village but neither Trilok
Munduiya nor his family members had attended the panchayat.
In cross-examination she has deposed that since the
Panchayati was a non-starter, the case was lodged in the police
station by Shukhlal Sawaiya.
9. P.W.5 Krishnachandra Sawaiya is the Munda of
Gitilipi village and on 11.02.2009 Shukhlal Sawaiya had
disclosed to him at 11.00 pm that Trilok Munduiya has
committed rape upon his daughter. In the morning he had gone
to the house of Shukhlal Sawaiya and asked the victim about the
incident who had disclosed about Trilok Munduiya having done a
wrong thing with her. Trilok Munduiya had fled away since the
villagers had assaulted him. He had signed on the Fardbayan of
the father of the victim which has been proved and marked as
Exhibit-1/1.
In cross-examination he has deposed that his
statement was recorded by the police. Trilok Munduiya was a
well-behaved person. There was a friction between the families of
the informant and the accused with respect to land as both
resided adjacent to each other.
10. P.W.6 Shukhlal Sawaiya has stated that on
11.02.2009 at 8.30 pm he had closed his shop and returned
home and after having his dinner, was watching TV when he
asked his wife Damyanti Sawaiya about the whereabouts of his
daughter. She had disclosed that she had gone to purchase
cigarette for Trilok Munduiya and has not yet returned. At this,
he and the others started searching for his daughter in the
neighbourhood. After 5-10 minutes his daughter was seen
coming and weeping who disclosed that she had gone to
purchase cigarette for Trilok Munduiya but since the shop was
closed she was returning when Trilok Munduiya had caught hold
of her, took her on his lap and went towards the west where he
forced himself upon her by opening her pant. On the third day of
the incident a case was lodged. He has proved his signature in
the Fardbayan which has been marked as Exhibit-1/2.
In cross-examination he has deposed that the
distance between his house and the house of Trilok Munduiya is
about 150 feet. He had informed the Munda on the night of the
assault itself.
11. P.W.7 Ram Chandra Ram was posted as a Sub-
Inspector of Police in Muffasil PS and on 13.02.2009 he was
given the charge of investigation of Mahila P.S. Case No. 09 of
2009. He has proved the formal F.I.R which has been marked as
Exhibit-2. He has proved the Fardbayan which has been marked
as Exhibit-1/3. The endorsement in the Fardbayan has been
proved and marked as Exhibit-1/4. The forwarding of the
Fardbayan from Muffasil PS to Mahila PS has been proved and
marked as Exhibit-1/5. In course of investigation, he had
recorded the restatement of the informant as well as the
statement of the victim. The victim was sent for medical
examination. He had inspected the place of occurrence which is
at village Gitilipi in the mud-tiled house of the informant. This is
the first place of occurrence and the second place of occurrence
is at a distance of 300 yards from the first place of occurrence in
the bushes situated besides the railway line. He had recorded
the statements of the witnesses. He had given an application to
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa for recording the 164
CrPC statement of the victim. He has proved the application
which has been marked as Exhibit-3.
In cross-examination he has deposed that he had not
seized anything in either of the places of occurrence. He had not
found any blood stains in the second place of occurrence.
12. P.W.8 Prabhu Sahay Ekka has stated that he was
handed over the investigation on 10.03.2009 by Rajdeo Singh,
Officer In-charge, Muffasil PS and after obtaining the medical
report of the victim he had submitted charge sheet.
13. P.W.9 Dr. Meena Kalundia was posted as a Medical
Officer at Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa and on 13.02.2009 a Medical
Board was constituted to examine the victim and the Board had
come to the following conclusion:-
1. M.I.- Right hand six finger bifurcated thumb.
One black more on flexon surface of left forearm.
2. General exam:-
Complexion - Dark
Body Built - Average
Height - 110 cm
Weight - 17 Kg.
Teeth - UT 11 / L1 11
3. Menstrual History:- Menarchy not attend as per
father's statement.
4. Secondary sexual charrater
Breast, pubic hair and auxiliary hair - not developed.
5. Mark of violence- Abrasion on right chick just lateral
to angle of mouth about 1" x 1/6"
6. Mental Status- Normal and alet and victim
cooperative
7. PLV Examination:
There was no foreign hair found on external genital.
Internal Exam- There is redness, swelling and marked
tenderness around the article of vagina. There is fresh
bleeding on touch. Hymen could not be clearly
visualized due to mark of odema and tenderness.
Vaginal swab examination report done by Pathologist
Dr. Dhirendra Kumar.
Sample- Hazy
M/E- Spermatozoa/No dead or alive spermatozoa
found
Pulse cell - Nil
Ebi cell- Nil
Bacteria- Nil
Radiological Finding:
X-ray done at Diagonostic centre, Sadar Hospital,
Chaibasa on 14.02.2009 at 10.00 A.M. X-ray report was
produced before me at 2.00 P.M. on 14.02.2009.
I. Both lateral and medical epichandi of Humerous not
fused.
II. Upper end of radius and Ulna not fused.
III. Lower epiphysis of radius and ulna not fused.
IV. Carpel bone seven in numbers ossified.
V. Pissiforam bone not assified Radiologically the age of
patient is about 6/7 years.
It has been opined that forceful penetration of the
vagina has been tried leading to oedema, redness and tenderness
around the orifice of the vagina. The age of the victim was 6-7
years. She has proved the injury report which has been marked
as Exhibit-4.
In cross-examination she has deposed that the Board
had not mentioned that sexual intercourse had taken place.
14. P.W.10 Shyamlal Saroj was posted as a Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Chaibasa and on 18.02.2009 he
had recorded the statement of the victim under Section 164
CrPC. He has proved the 164 CrPC statement of the victim which
has been marked as Exhibit-5.
15. The statement of the accused was recorded under
Section 313 CrPC in which he has denied his complicity in
committing rape upon the victim.
16. Ms. Nalini Jha, learned counsel for the appellant has
submitted that there are no eyewitnesses to the occurrence and
the evidence of the victim is tutored. It has been submitted that
the doctor has not categorically stated that the victim was
subjected to rape.
17. Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned Spl.P.P has submitted
that the evidence of P.W. 1 (victim) clearly reveals as to how the
appellant had taken her towards the railway line on his lap and
had committed rape upon him, which finds support from the
medical report.
18. We have heard the Learned counsel for the respective
parties and have also perused the trial court record.
19. The daughter of the informant while watching
television was said to have been sent out by the appellant to
purchase cigarettes for which Rs.10/- was given with an added
Rs.2/- to the victim to purchase anything of her choice. As per
the victim (P.W. 1) the shop was closed and when she returned,
the appellant who was waiting near the gate, picked her up on
his lap, took her towards the railway line and subjected her to
physical abuse. The presence of the appellant in the house of the
informant is undeniable and it is the consistent case of the
prosecution that the victim was sent by the appellant to
purchase cigarettes. The evidence of P.W. 1 has been supported
by P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6. Though there has been a
slight delay in lodging the F.I.R, but the same has been suitably
explained by the prosecution since after the incident had
occurred, the same was informed by P.W. 6 (informant) to the
Munda of the village (P.W.5) and thereafter the police was
approached. The evidence of the witnesses therefore leaves no
room for doubt that it was the appellant who had taken away
P.W. 1 towards the railway line and subjected her to sexual
abuse.
20. P.W. 9 had medically examined the victim and signs
of injury were found on the private parts of the victim. It has
been opined by P.W. 9 that forceful penetration of the vagina has
been tried which would mean that an attempt was made by the
appellant to commit rape upon the victim. The appellant has
been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life for the charge
under section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code.
21. We, in view of the aforesaid, modify the sentence
imposed upon the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for 12
years. The appellant is in custody since 11.02.2009 and has
completed the modified sentence imposed upon him. The
appellant is, therefore, directed to be released immediately and
forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.
22. This appeal stands disposed of.
23. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stand(s)
closed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Ambuj Nath, J.)
Shamim/-
