Jharkhand High Court
Sumi Sinku vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 November, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Neutral Citation
(2025:JHHC:34451-DB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Acquittal Appeal No. 112 of 2023
Sumi Sinku, D/o Late Nawru Sinku, R/o Vill- Barmauhliya,
P.O. & P.S.- Jagnnathpur, Dist.- West Singhbhum.
--- --- Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Soma Koda, S/o Late Sonaram Koraha, R/o Vill- Patahatu,
P.O. & P.S.- Jagannathpur, Dist.- West Singhbhum.
--- --- Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
---
For the Appellant : Mrs. Pragati Prasad, Adv.
For the State : Spl. P.P.
For the Resp. no. 2 : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Adv.
---
07/19.11.2025 Heard Mrs. Pragati Prasad, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Deepak Kumar, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent no. 2.
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated
31.01.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-IV, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa in S.T. No. 141/2021,
whereby and whereunder, the respondent no. 2 has been
acquitted from the charges levelled against him.
An FIR was instituted by the appellant herein in
which it has been alleged that the respondent no. 2 had
entered into her house and had forcibly committed rape upon
her and had further assured her that he will solemnize
marriage with her. It has further been alleged that on the
pretext of marriage, physical relationship was established on
several occasions and when the appellant started pressurising
the respondent no. 2 to solemnize marriage, the same was
flatly refused and she was threatened and ousted from the
Neutral Citation
(2025:JHHC:34451-DB)
house of respondent no. 2 which led to institution of the First
Information Report.
On completion of investigation, charge sheet was
submitted under Section 376 IPC and after cognizance was
taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where
it was registered as S.T. No. 141/2021. Charges were framed
against the respondent no. 2 under Section 376(2)(n), 323, 504
and 506 IPC which were read over and explained to him in
Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
In course of trial, five witnesses have been examined
and barring the informant, who has been examined as P.W.1
and the I.O., all the witnesses have turned hostile.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant that FIR itself categorically reveals about the manner
in which the respondent no. 2 had established physical
relationship with the appellant on the pretext of marriage and
such version is also reflected in the evidence of the appellant
who has been examined as P.W.1. Learned counsel submits
that the learned trial court has not considered this aspect of
the matter and has primarily relied upon the fact that some of
the witnesses have been declared hostile by the prosecution
and the I.O. had not found any sign of rape at the place of
occurrence.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2
has submitted that the appellant herself in her evidence as
P.W.1 admitted to be staying in the house of the respondent
no. 2 and although the incident is of 2015 onwards, but the
FIR was instituted after almost five years from the date of
occurrence. Learned counsel submits that in fact the wife of
the respondent no. 2 had died just prior to the incident and
taking advantage of her absence, the appellant had entered
into the house of the respondent no. 2 and she has also
Neutral Citation
(2025:JHHC:34451-DB)
admitted to have established physical relationship with him on
several occasions.
On going through the evidence of P.W.1, it is
categorically revealed that she has herself admitted that she is
the sister-in-law of the respondent no. 2 and she had given
consent to the respondent no. 2 to establish physical
relationship with her. She has further stated that she was
never forced into a sexual relationship by the respondent
no. 2. It appears from the evidence of P.W.1, who happens to
be the appellant in the present case, that she had stayed in
the house of respondent no. 2 for a considerable length of time
and whatever relationship they had established was on
account of the consent of the appellant as well as the
respondent no. 2. The learned trial court has meticulously
examined the evidence of the appellant while coming to a
conclusion that the charges against the respondent no. 2 have
not been proved. We do not find any reasons to conclude
otherwise and consequently, the present Acquittal Appeal
stands dismissed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Dated- 19th November, 2025.
Preet/-
