Raghu Manjhi vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 7039 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Raghu Manjhi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 November, 2025

Author: Rajesh Kumar

Bench: Rajesh Kumar

                                                                      2025:JHHC:34657



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 Criminal Appeal (S.J) No.235 of 2005

    [Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.10.2004 passed in
    Sessions Trial No.88/2003 and Supplementary Sessions Trial No.71 of 2003, arising out of
    Pindrajora P.S. Case No.50 of 2002, by the Court of Sri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey,
    learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-2, Bokaro]
                                       ----

1. Raghu Manjhi, son of Sri Moti Lal Manjhi

2. Jit Lal Manjhi, son of Sri Deb Nath Manjhi

3. Lal Manjhi, son of Yogendra Soren All are resident of Village :Bandhgora, B-Block, P.S. Pindrajora, District-

        Bokaro                                     .... .... Appellants
                                     -Versus-
    1. The State of Jharkhand

2. 'X' name masked by this Court, R/o Badki Beda, P.O. and P.S Nawadih, District Bokaro .... .... Respondents

----

PRESENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

----

For the Appellants : Mr. Rama Kant Tiwari, Adv.

    For the State                           : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P
    For the Informant                       : Mr. R.C.P. Sah, Adv.
                                       ----
                   th
    10/Dated: 20 November, 2025

1. Heard Mr. Rama Kant Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants, Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned counsel for the State and Mr. R.C.P. Sah, learned counsel appearing for the Informant.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.10.2004 passed in Sessions Trial No.88/2003 and Supplementary Sessions Trial No.71 of 2003, arising out of Pindrajora P.S. Case No.50 of 2002 whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 354, 342 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C) and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Sections 342 and 323 IPC each and further rigorous imprisonment for eighteen months for the offence under Section 354 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The informant of this case is the prosecutrix herself. On the basis of her fardbeyan, the F.I.R being Pindrajora P.S. Case No.50 of 2002, corresponding

1 Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.235 of 2005 2025:JHHC:34657

to G.R Case No.779 of 2002 has been lodged on 12.08.2002 against the appellants.

4. In her fardbeyan, the prosecutrix has stated that on 24.07.2002, she returned to her home after the Matric Supplementary Examination and at 1:00 O' Clock, she went to fetch water from the hand pump. At that time, the accused persons came there and one of the accused persons namely, Raghu Manjhi told the prosecutrix that he loves her and she should perform marriage with him. When the prosecutrix denied then all the accused persons caught hold her and pulled her to a drain of flowing water. Raghu Manjhi over powered her and for wrong doing, untied the tape of her paijama. He tried to commit rape upon her. The prosecutrix tried to save her by moving her legs and hands then the accused Lal Manjhi caught her hand. On alarm of the prosecutrix, her sister namely, Moni Devi, Sujani Kumari, Ramdhan Manjhi and Sudhir Rajwar of her village reached there. The accused persons assaulted her firstly by fist and slaps and thereafter, they fled away.

5. On the basis of said fardbeyan, the police, instituted the F.I.R for the offence under Sections 376/511 IPC and after investigation, has submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 511, 323 & 34 IPC, upon which, cognizance has been taken. Accordingly, charge has been framed under sections 342/34, 323/34 and 376 r/w Section 511 and 34 IPC. The case has been committed to the Court of Sessions to which the appellants have pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried.

6. To substantiate the prosecution story, altogether eleven witnesses have been examined, which are as follows:-

P.W.1 Ramdhan Manjhi, P.W.2 Munni Devi, P.W.3 Shivdhan Manjhi, P.W.4 Sudhir Rajwar P.W.5 Gopin Manjhi P.W.6 Lakhi Ram Manjhi is the father of the victim. P.W.7 Dr. Rozi Shankar is the doctor. P.W.8 Dev Brat Das Gupta is the another doctor, P.W.9 Sanjoti Kumari, P.W.10 is the victim herself.

2 Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.235 of 2005 2025:JHHC:34657

P.W.11 Karam Singh Horo. is the I.O. of this case.

7. P.W.1 Ramadhan Manjhi is an eye-witness and he has stated in his examination-in-chief that on the date of occurrence, he was present at his house and upon hearing of the alarm of victim, he rushed towards the place of occurrence where he saw that the accused persons were trying to commit rape upon the victim, when he arrived there the accused fled away. He has further deposed that the victim was unconscious while treatment at the hospital.

During his cross-examination, he has stated that he was about 100-150 yards from the hand pump. He find the girl alone and no other person was there.

8. P.W.2 Munni Devi is the sister of the victim and an eye-witness. She has supported the prosecution story. She has stated that in her examination-in-chief that when she reached near the place of occurrence then the accused persons fled away from there. In her cross-examination, she has deposed that she saw all the three accused persons were present at the place of occurrence with her sister. She has stated that the case was lodged after 11/2 week and a panchayati was also held.

9. P.W.3 is Shivdhan Manjhi, who has stated about the fact of panchyati in which victim has narrated all the facts related to the occurrence of this case. He does not know about the decision of panchyat.

10. P.W.4 Sudhir Rajwar is a hearsay witness, who has been declared hostile.

11. P.W.5 Gopin Manjhi is a hearsay witness.

12. P.W.6 Lakhi Ram Manjhi is the father of the victim, who has stated that on 24.07.2002 when he returned to his house from his duty of B.S.L, he came to know that his daughter (i.e, the victim) has gone to B.G.H. with her sister Muni Kumari then he also went to B.G.H where he found her in an unconscious condition who gained consciousness after 2-3 hours. After gaining consciousness, she told him about the occurrence.

13. P.W.7 Dr. Rozi Shankar is the doctor, who has examined the victim on 29.08.2002. As per her opinion, the age of the victim was about 20 years and there was no any evidence of recent intercourse. She has further deposed that no rape was committed upon her. She has examined the victim after 37 days of the occurrence.

3 Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.235 of 2005 2025:JHHC:34657

14. P.W.8 Dev Brath Das Gupta is the another Doctor, who has examined the medical book and has opined that the prosecutrix attended B.G.H on 24.07.2002 at 06:30 P.M., in children O.P.D with a complain of pain over left side of skul following a blunt injury. She was advised to attend the neuro Surgical Department through casualty but she did not attend casualty on the same day to get her injuries be examined. As per his evidence, the prosecutrix has attended the B.G.H for treatment of her injury sustained on her head.

15. P.W.9 Sanjoti Kumar is a hearsay witness, who rushed to the place of occurrence on hearing alarm of the victim.

16. P.W.10 is the informant/victim. She is the main witnesses of this case. In examination-in-chief, she has stated that on 24.07.2002 at about 01:00 P.M., She came to her house after appearing in the supplementary matriculation examination and went to hand pump to fetch water. By that time, accused persons came there and Raghu Manjhi told that he loves her and she should perform marriage with him, when she denied the same, then all the three accused dragged her towards the drain. Further, she has stated that Lal Manjhi caught her hand Raghu Manjhi untied her paizama and he tried to commit rape upon her.

In cross-examination, she has stated that she went to B.G.H for treatment on 25.07.2002 and also stated that a panchayati was held. She further stated that the panchayati was called by the accused persons in which she, her father and the other family members were present but no any conclusion was drawn.

17. P.W.11 Karam Singh Horo is the I.O. of this case, who has stated that he had gone to the place of occurrence and he has also given description of the place of occurrence that there was a hand pump and a drain situated at Bandhgora side B-Block and there is distance about 79-80 yards between the said government hand pump and drain. He has further stated that the second place of occurrence was dry. The victim was examined on 24.07.2002. Though there is no injury report of the incident and she was again examined on 29.08.2002 on the advice of P.W.11, but again no injury could be proved.

18. Referring to the depositions of P.W.10, P.W.8 and P.W.11, learned counsel for the appellants has made submission before this Court that:-

(i) The victim in her cross-examination has admitted that she has told about the incident to the panchayat for the first time on

4 Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.235 of 2005 2025:JHHC:34657

02.09.2002, while she has taken defence for delay that due to panchayati, the F.I.R has been lodged after much delay.

(ii) The incident is dated 24.07.2002 and she had gone to the hospital for treatment and on the next day i.e., 25.07.2002. This fact has been proved by P.W.8 i.e., doctor on the basis of the medical record kept in the hospital and that has been exhibited also.

(iii) From above deposition of the victim, it is clear that on 24.07.2002, she had gone to the hospital for treatment for injury on her head, but she has not turned up for any further examination. On the next day, she has been advised for psychiatric treatment, but she has not turned for the same. Except pain killer, nothing has been advised.

(iv) She has further deposed that she has disclosed the incident, the place of occurrence to her relatives as well as to the Doctor before the I.O. But the I.O has denied such disclosure. The F.I.R has been lodged on 12.08.2002.

(v) Further, she has admitted that the panchayati was held on 02.09.2002 on which date she has disclosed to the villagers regarding the incident.

(vi) The I.O has been recalled for further examination for creating an eye-witness to the incident i.e, Sudhir Rajwar (P.W.4), but in the cross-examination, he has admitted that when he reached the place of occurrence there was no crime and he is also not an eye- witness.

(vii) Rest of the witnesses are not eye-witness to the incident. As per the prosecutrix, family members were reached after half an hour of the incident.

19. Thus, the above deposition clearly suggests that there was no eye- witness to the occurrence. Further, the prosecutrix has deposed that the bundle of lies which gets corroboration by P.W.8 and P.W.11.

20. Referring to the above depositions, it has further been submitted that virtually there is no material against these appellants connecting with the alleged crime. The Trial Court has disbelieved the statement of the victim and has acquitted the appellants from the charge under Section 376 read with

5 Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.235 of 2005 2025:JHHC:34657

Section 511 IPC. But there is no material for conviction under Section 342 IPC as well as Sections 323 read with Section 34 IPC.

21. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of conviction and it has been submitted that the victim has clearly stated regarding the attempt to rape against the named accused persons. They have been named in the F.I.R and this fact has also been reiterated in her depositions.

22. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the records, it appears that:-

(i) The victim has got treatment on 24.07.2002 as well as on 25.07.2002. But there is no narration regarding the incident.

(ii) The F.I.R has been lodged 12.08.2002 after much delay and the reason has been disclosed that the panchayati for the first time has been held on 02.09.2002.

(iii) The prosecutrix has falsely deposed her age which gets corroboration from the medical evidence and she has stated that she is matriculate but she does not remember her date of birth in in the Matriculation Certificate and that has not been produced in the present proceeding.

23. Accordingly, this Court finds that the witnesses produced by the prosecutrix are not reliable and the conviction on the basis of her statement is not proper and therefore, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.10.2004 passed in Sessions Trial No.88/2003 and Supplementary Sessions Trial No.71 of 2003, arising out of Pindrajora P.S. Case No.50 of 2002, by the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court- 2, Bokaro, is hereby, quashed and set-aside.

24. In the result, the present Criminal Appeal stands allowed.

25. Since the appellants are already on bail and as such, they are discharged from the liability of their bail bond.

26. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this judgment.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Dated: 20th November, 2025 (Raja) uploaded on 27.11.2025

6 Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.235 of 2005