Jharkhand High Court
Additional Sessions Judge vs The State Of Jharkhand on 30 October, 2025
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
2025:JHHC:32698
2023:JHHC:44544
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 291 of 2005
-----
(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.02.2005
passed in S.C. No. 60 of 1992/S.T. No. 418 of 1993 arising out of Rajmahal
P.S. Case No. 171 of 1991 corresponding to G.R. Case No.325 of 1991, T.R.
No. 854 of 1991 by the Court of Mr. Anil Kumar Choudhary, learned 1st
Additional Sessions Judge, Rajmahal)
Sagar @ Saudagar Mandal, Son of Late Koku Mandal, resident of Sobhapur,
P.S.- Rajmahal, District- Sahibganj --- --- Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent
.......
For the Appellant : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Ashutosh Kr. Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P. (through VC)
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
JUDGMENT
30.10.2025 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Spl.P.P.
representing the State.
2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 02.02.2005 passed in S.C. No.
60 of 1992/S.T. No. 418 of 1993 arising out of Rajmahal P.S. Case
No. 171 of 1991 corresponding to G.R. Case No.325 of 1991, T.R.
No. 854 of 1991 by the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge,
Rajmahal, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence
under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of
Rs.5000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo R.I. for three
months.
3. The criminal law has been put into motion on lodging an F.I.R
being Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 171 of 1991 against the appellant
1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 291 of 2005
2025:JHHC:32698
2023:JHHC:44544
making an allegation that while the victim was returning after
attending the nature's call then the appellant committed rape upon her
on gun point.
4. On the basis of the investigation, the Police submitted
chargesheet on 13.08.1991 against the appellant and thereafter
cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of
Sessions.
5. Accordingly, charge was framed on 19.06.2001against the
appellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. To substantiate the allegations altogether nine prosecution
witnesses have been examined. The defence has also examined three
witnesses.
7. In support of his contention, learned counsel for appellant has
taken the following grounds:
I. P.W.6- victim, although has stated in her cross
examination that there was injury and she had taken
medicine but this fact is not supported or corroborated by
the medical evidence available on record marked as Ext.
A.
II. The victim has deposed that she along with her brother
Mahabir Mandal- P.W.8 had gone to the house of Basant
Pramanik, who is the Mukhiya of the village examined as
P.W.5, for making complaint and on his advice the F.I.R
has been lodged. However, the said P.W.5 has denied
such statement in his deposition and stated that he was
not even aware whether such incident has taken place or
not.
III. P.W.7-Nirmala Bewa, who is sister of the informant has
claimed herself to be an eye witness to the incident and
has stated that she had seen the appellant fleeing away
from the place of occurrence. But there is no other
witness to support the presence of P.W.7 at the place of
2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 291 of 2005
2025:JHHC:32698
2023:JHHC:44544
occurrence rather the prosecution story has never
introduced P.W.7 to be an eye witness to the occurrence.
IV. Further, the blood stained clothes and other incriminating
materials were never sent for forensic examination and
not converted into evidence.
V. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
only material available against the appellant is the
solitary evidence of the victim, however, it is settled
principle of law that on the sole evidence of the victim
conviction can be sustained but the evidence must be
reliable. In the present case the statement of the victim is
questionable as she has disclosed about injury sustained
by her but her statement is not corroborated by the
medical evidence.
VI. Further, it is submitted by learned counsel for the
appellant that the F.IR has been lodged on the advice of
the Mukhiya-P.W.5 who has denied such statement ever
made by him.
VII. Further, P.W.7 claimed herself to be an eyewitness but no
other witnesses have supported the fact that P.W.7 was
present at the place of occurrence. Thus, the prosecution
has tried to implicate the appellant by making
contradictory statement. Since, there is enough
contradiction in the testimony of the victim which makes
her statement doubtful.
8. On the strength of above discrepancies, learned counsel for the
appellant has submitted that the appellant is entitled for benefit of
doubt and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence must be
interfered with by quashing and setting aside the same.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going
through the trial court record, it appears that:
i. Although the petticoat and other incriminating articles
3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 291 of 2005
2025:JHHC:32698
2023:JHHC:44544
have been seized but there is no forensic examination of
the said clothes.
ii. Although P.W.7 introduced herself as an eye witness by
stating that the appellant was seen fleeing away from the
place of occurrence. But that fact does not find support
from any other prosecution witness as there is no
mention of her presence by any other witness.
iii. The corroborative material as available against the
appellant is that the victim has disclosed about the
incident to her brother and sister but there is no statement
by her sister in her support by stating that she was also
present at the place of occurrence and seen the appellant
fleeing away from the place of occurrence.
iv. The investigating officer is also important so far as
statement made by P.W.7 is concerned, but the said
investigating officer has not been examined.
v. The only material available against the appellant is the
testimony of the victim but her statement is also doubtful
since she has claimed to have sustain injury but the
medical evidence does not support her statement.
10. It is settled principle of law that conviction can be upheld on
the sole testimony of the victim but her testimony must create
confidence. However, in the present case, this Court finds that the
testimony of the victim does not create confidence. There is no
sufficient material to uphold the judgment of conviction passed by the
learned Trial Court and the learned Trial Court has erred in recording
the judgment of conviction against the present appellant.
11. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 02.02.2005 passed in S.C. No. 60 of 1992/S.T. No. 418
of 1993 arising out of Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 171 of 1991
corresponding to G.R. Case No.325 of 1991, T.R. No. 854 of 1991 by
the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rajmahal are
4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 291 of 2005
2025:JHHC:32698
2023:JHHC:44544
quashed and set aside.
12. Since the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability
of his bail bond.
13. This Criminal Appeal is allowed.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Dated 30th October 2025
A. Mohanty
Jharkhand High Court
5 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 291 of 2005
