Jharkhand High Court
Ghanshyam Laguri vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 November, 2025
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
2025:JHHC:34496
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.1086 of 2005
[Against the judgment of conviction dated 15.12.2004 and order of sentence dated
18.12.2004, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I,
Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No.40 of 2003, arising out of Gua P.S. Case No.38/2002,
corresponding to G.R No.408 of 2002]
Ghanshyam Laguri, son of Sri Ramlal Laguri, resident of Village- Durasai,
P.S. Gua, District-West Singhbhum .... .... Appellant
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. 'X' name masked by this Court, P.O & P.S. Gua, District West
Singhbhum at Chaibasa .... .... Respondents
---
PRESENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
----
For the Appellant : Mrs. Aporva Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P.
(Through Video Conference)
22/Dated: 18th November, 2025
1. Heard Mrs. Apoorva Singh, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and
Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel for the State.
2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated
15.12.2004 and order of sentence dated 18.12.2004, passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No.40
of 2003, arising out of Gua P.S. Case No.38/2002, corresponding to G.R No.408
of 2002 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence
under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (In short I.P.C) and has been
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of
Rs.1,000 for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C and in default of payment of
fine, he has further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three
months.
3. The informant of this case is the prosecutrix herself. On the basis of her
fardbeyan which was recorded on 22.11.2002, Gua P.S. Case No.38/2002,
corresponding to G.R No.408 of 2002 was registered against the appellant.
4. In her fardbeyan, the prosecutrix has stated that on 24.10.2002 in the
night there was 'Chathi' of younger brother's son of the informant. At about
Page | 1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1086 of 2005
2025:JHHC:34496
"03-04 O' clock in the night, all the persons were slept after taking food. The
informant (i.e., the prosecutrix) was going to her maternal uncle's room for giving
him Haria. Meanwhile, the accused caught her from behind and took her away to
bush located outside of the house by pressing her neck and committed rape and
thereafter, he fled away. The informant returned to her house and gave
information to her family members. The informant's brother reported about the
occurrence to village Munda namely, Laxman Kerai. The villagers wanted to
punish the appellant after convening Panchayat but the appellant had fled away
from his house and the Panchayat was not convened. Due to planning of
convening, there was delay in lodging the F.I.R.
5. On the basis of the said fardbeyan, the police instituted the F.I.R and after
investigation, has submitted the charge-sheet against the accused person under
Section 376 IPC. Accordingly, cognizance has been taken and the case has been
committed to the court of sessions, to which appellant has pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried. Upon conclusion of the trial, the appellant has been convicted
for the offence under Section 376 IPC.
6. To substantiate the prosecution story, altogether ten witnesses have been
examined in this case. The prosecutrix has been examined as P.W.6. Among the
ten witnesses, P.W.2 Santosh Tanti, P.W.3 Chandan Singh Kerai and P.W.9
Mangal Singh Laguri have been declared hostile.
7. P.W.1 Rupesh Ch. Bansingh is the brother of the informant and he has
stated that while he was sleeping in his room, he heard shout of his mother
"where was Bansi". Then he went outside and saw that the P.W.6 was weeping
near the Bush and on asking her, she told him that the accused committed rape
upon her. Thereafter, he informed to village Munda and parent of the accused. He
further stated that panchayati was convened where the accused was punished to
pay fine, but he has refused to do so.
8. P.W.4 Dr. Deepshikha Verma is the doctor, who has examined the
prosecutrix on 23.11.2002, whereas the date of occurrence was 24.10.2002 i.e.
after one month of the occurrence. She has stated that during course of
examination, she found no spermatozoa dead or alive. She opined that the victim
was in habit of intercourse. She has not found any violant mark or injury in her
person. She has not declared age of the prosecutrix in her examination.
Page | 2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1086 of 2005
2025:JHHC:34496
9. P.W.5 Laxman Kerai is the village Munda who has deposed that the
special type of community marriage in the Ho society called Peaur Marriage, in
which, a male boy used to catch the hand of unmarried girl and takes her away by
force and entices her to marry. Depsite the girl does not want to marry him then
Panchayat may impose fine upon him.
10. P.W.6 is the informant as well as the prosecutrix. She has supported the
F.I.R and stated that in the night of occurrence while all invitees were went to
their house to sleep after taking food and Haria, the accused took away her and
committed rape and he fled away. Thereafter, she came and informed about the
occurrence to inmates of the house.
11. P.W.7 Jamadar Bansi is the brother of the prosecutrix and he has deposed
that when all villagers returned from his house after taking food after 'Chatti' of
his son, her sister went to the room of maternal uncle for feeding food and haria.
When she did not return then he went to search his sister in outside of the house,
he saw that the accused was fleeing away after committing rape upon her.
12. P.W.8 B.K. Rajbanshi is the Investigating Officer of this case and he has
stated that he has produced the prosecutrix before the medical board. According to
him, the place of occurrence situated about 10 yards western side of the house of
the prosecutrix. He has further deposed that the witnesses have supported the
prosecution case in his presence during investigation stage. In cross-examination,
he has deposed that panchayati was convened for the alleged occurrence and the
decision convened was not finalised in time. So, delay in filing the case has
occurred.
13. Referring to the above material brought on record, learned counsel for the
appellant has assailed the judgment of conviction on the following grounds:-
(i) The incident is dated 24.10.2002, but the F.I.R has been lodged on
22.11.2002. It has been specifically mentioned in the F.I.R that delay
was occurred in lodging the F.I.R due to panchayati, which could not be
held.
(ii) The only witnesses available under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 are P.W.1 Rupesh Ch. Bansingh (brother of the prosecutrix), P.W.7
Jamadar Bansingh (brother of the prosecutrix) and P.W.5, Laxman
Kerai, who is the village Munda and witnesses to the panchayati.
Page | 3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1086 of 2005
2025:JHHC:34496
(iii) It has been submitted that P.W.1 Rupesh Ch. Bansingh has clearly stated
that on hulla raised by her mother, he has gone outside and saw that
prosecutrix was weeping and she has narrated about the incident. But this
statement has been negated by P.W-7 as well as P.W-6 who is the
prosecutrix herself and as such, the evidence of P.W.1 is totally falsified by
the other witnesses. He has stated about the panchayati which has been
negated in the F.I.R by the P.W.6 and P.W.5 in their cross-examination.
(iv) So far as witnesses of P.W.7 Jamadar Banshing (brother of the prosecutrix)
is concerned, likewise his statement gets negated by the I.O as well as
prosecutrix herself regarding the time of commission of crime as well as
holding of Panchayat and the manner of commission of crime.
(v) So far as P.W.5 Laxman Munda is concerned, he has clearly stated that he
was not informed regarding commission of rape.
14. Although, it is settled law that the deposition of prosecutrix is enough for
conviction, if it is reliable. But in the present case, P.W.6 has improved her
version in the deposition regarding holding of the panchayat, while she has clearly
stated in the F.I.R that no panchayati was held and the F.I.R has been lodged after
one month. Further, it has been submitted that none of the witnesses are reliable
even the prosecutrix. There is no cogent material rather there is no material is
available to upheld the judgment of conviction.
15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the
judgment of conviction and it has been submitted that the prosecutrix has clearly
stated regarding commission of rape and this fact has been supported by P.W.1
and P.W.7. Further, it has been submitted that so far as medical evidence is
concerned, i.e., not sine qua non for corroboration and further the incident has
been reported after a month and as such, there cannot be any medical evidence.
16. Further, it has been submitted that merely delay in lodging the F.I.R is not
fatal, but in the present case, delay has been explained due to the fact that
panchayati could not be held within time.
17. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the
records, it appears that:-
(i) The only evidences are available i.e., P.W.1 and P.W.7 who are the
brothers of the victim, but their reliability gets negated by P.W.5 and
P.W.8.
Page | 4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1086 of 2005
2025:JHHC:34496
(ii) The factum of panchayati has been negated in the F.I.R as well as by
P.W.5 and P.W-5, who is the village Munda has negated the fact that
he has been informed regarding rape.
(iii) So far as examination of prosecutrix is concerned, she herself has
stated that no panchayati could be held in the F.I.R, but she has
improved the same in the deposition.
(iv) The time of commission of crime as stated by her that it was after
serving Hadia to her uncle but all other witnesses have stated that it
was before serving the Hadia.
(v) Apart from other contradiction available on record, this contradiction
is enough to come to the conclusion that the deposition of the
prosecutrix is not reliable.
18. From the above discussions, this Court finds that the testimony of the
prosecutrix and her brothers are not reliable and further, there is no cogent
material available on record for upholding the judgment of conviction.
19. This Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under
Section 376 IPC against the appellant and accordingly, his conviction for the said
offence is set-aside.
20. The appellant namely, Ghanshyam Laguri is acquitted from the criminal
charge against him in Sessions Trial No.40 of 2003 arising out of Gua P.S. Case
No.38/2002, corresponding to G.R No.408 of 2002.
21. In the result, the present Criminal Appeal stands allowed.
22. Since the appellant is already on bail, he is discharged from the liability of
his bail bond.
23. Assistance given by the learned Amicus Curiae Mrs.Apoorva Singh, is
appreciated.
24. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned
forthwith, along with the copy of this judgment.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated: 18thNovember, 2025
Raja-uploaded on 24.11.2025
Page | 5 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1086 of 2005
