Father Of Victim X vs State Of Jharkhand on 6 April, 2026

Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

                                                             2026:JHHC:9674-DB




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                       Acquittal Appeal (D.B.) No.60 of 2025
                                      -----

       Father of Victim X.                                 ----- Appellant
                                    Versus
       1.   State of Jharkhand

2. Majid Rai son of Kalim Rai, resident of village Hapamuni, P.O. and P.S. Ghaghra, Dist. Gumla.

----- Respondents

------

PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

-------

            For the Appellant      : Mr. Binit Chandra, Advocate
            For the State          : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P
            For the Resp.No.2      : Mr. Nikhilesh Kr. Chatterjee, Adv.
                                          -------

05/06.04.2026     Heard Mr. Binit Chandra, learned counsel for the

appellant and Mr. Nikhilesh Kumar Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 as well as learned P.P.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 05.04.2025 passed by Shri Sanjeev Bhatia, learned Exclusive Special Judge (POCSO), Gumla in POCSO Case No. 81 of 2022, whereby and whereunder the respondent no. 2 has been acquitted from the charges leveled against him.

3. The prosecution case arises out of written report of the informant in which it has been stated that the eldest daughter of the informant aged 14 years who studies at Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya in Class-8 had come home on account of Muharram. The wife of the informant used to remain sick and on 10.08.2022 at 5.00 a.m. the informant had taken his wife for treatment to Ranchi by leaving his two daughters at home. When the informant returned from Ranchi late at night, his eldest daughter had disclosed that on the same day, several villagers had gone to village Senha, District Lohardaga to attend a fair on account of Muharram and her younger sister had gone out to graze cattle when Majid Rai entered into the house and started outraging her modesty. When

the daughter of the informant resisted, she was assured that on attaining majority, Majid Rai would solemnize marriage with her and on such assurance, rape was committed upon her. The daughter of the informant was threatened not to disclose such act to anyone. On the next day, on being confided with the act committed by Majid Rai, the informant had gone to the house of Majid Rai and disclosed about the rape at which the family members of Majid Rai assured him that Nikah will be performed between Majid Rai and the victim. On such assurance, the informant did not make any complaint anywhere, but on being confronted with the situation in which the Nikah of Majid Rai has been fixed elsewhere, the informant had submitted the written report.

Based on the aforesaid allegations, Ghaghra P.S. Case No.121/2022 has been instituted under Section 376 IPC and Sections 4/8 POCSO Act. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted after which cognizance was taken. Charge was framed against the accused/respondent no. 2 under Section 376(3) IPC and Sections 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act, which was read over and explained to him 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 victim has stated that on 10.07.2022, her parents had left for Ranchi at 6.00-7.00 a.m. and her younger sister had also gone to graze goats when the accused had come to her house and professed his love for her at which she retorted that the accused is much older to him. The accused had thereafter closed the door and committed rape upon her. While leaving, the accused had assured her that once she attains majority, he will solemnise marriage with her. He had also threatened her not to disclose about the incident to anyone. When the accused was trying to solemnise marriage elsewhere, she had informed about the incident to her parents. The accused has already solemnised marriage with

another girl. She has identified her signature in her 164 Cr.P.C statement, which has been marked as Exhibit P-1/P.W.1. She has also identified her signature in the medical report, which has been marked as Exhibit P-2/P.W.1.

In cross-examination, she has deposed that there are several houses adjacent to her house. At the time of the incident, her grandparents were at home. The accused had entered into her house within 5-10 minutes of her parents leaving the house. There is only one door in the house, which opens towards the south. There are three rooms in the house. After the rape was committed, she had not come out of the house. She had disclosed about the incident to her parents after two months. She had gone to the police station alone to lodge a case. Her father had not accompanied her.

6. P.W.2, Dr. Shakuntala Murmu was posted as a Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital, Gumla and on 17-11-2022, she had conducted a medical examination of the victim and had opined that sexual assault on the victim cannot be ruled out. She has proved the medical report, which has been marked as Exhibit P-2/P.W.2.

7. P.W.3, Ruteja Bibi is the mother of the victim, who has stated that the victim had disclosed about the occurrence after three months. The victim was alone in her house when the accused entered and committed rape upon her and thereafter threatened the victim not to disclose about the incident to anyone. The accused did not solemnise marriage with the victim, but solemnised marriage elsewhere.

In cross examination, she has deposed that she was not aware about the incident for three months. The victim was aged 14 years, but since she is illiterate, she cannot state about the date of birth of the victim. She has also deposed that there are several houses in the locality.

8. P.W.4 is the informant who has stated that on 10.08.2022 he had gone to Ranchi for the treatment of his wife leaving his two daughters in the house. The victim had disclosed

about the incident after three months. After committing rape upon the victim, the accused had threatened her not to disclose about the incident to anyone. He has proved his signature on the written report, which has been marked as Exhibit P-3/P.W.4.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that before lodging the case, he had met the family members of the accused. When the marriage of the accused was fixed elsewhere, the victim had disclosed about the incident to him. There was no enmity prior to the occurrence between him and the family members of the accused.

9. P.W.5, Jakir Rai is the uncle of the victim who has stated that on 10-08-2022 the accused had committed rape upon the victim when she was alone in the house. The age of the victim was 14 years. He had come to know about the incident after three months.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that the police had recorded his statement. He had not stated before the police that on the next day of occurrence, he had gone to the house of the accused. Perhaps no case would have been instituted, had the accused solemnized marriage with the victim.

10. P.W.6 Sabana Khatun is the aunt of the victim who had come to know about the incident of rape when she had come to her parental house.

In cross-examination, she has deposed that the age of the victim being 12-13 years on the date of occurrence has been speculated by her.

11. P.W.7 Basir Rai is the uncle of the victim who has stated that after three months, the victim had disclosed that the accused had committed rape upon her. After the incident came to light, he had gone to the house of the accused but despite an assurance given by the family members of the accused to get their marriage solemnized after the victim attains majority, the marriage of the accused was fixed elsewhere.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he and his brother Sakeer Rai had gone to talk with the family members of the accused. The police had never recorded his statement.

12. P.W.8 Renu Sujata was posted as an Assistant Teacher at Kasturba Gandhi Girls School, Gumla and she had produced the admission register from 2018 till date. As per the admission register, the victim was a student of her school. At serial no. 789 for the academic year 2020-21, the name of the victim, her father's name and her address has been mentioned and her date of birth has been noted as 19.04.2008. The page in the admission register which pertains to such facts has been marked as Exhibit P- 4/P.W.7. She has also proved the letter of the school dated 26-11-2022 indicating the date of birth of the victim which has been marked as Exhibit P-5/P.W.7.

In cross-examination, she has deposed that the entry details of the victim in the admission register was on the basis of Aadhaar Card. No other document supporting the said date of birth of the victim was produced at the time of admission.

13. P.W.9 Abhishek Kumar was posted as a Sub-Inspector of Police at Ghaghra P.S and on 17-11-2022 he was entrusted with the investigation of Ghaghra P.S. Case No. 121/2022 by the Officer in-charge of Ghaghra P.S. He has proved the endorsement in the written report which has been marked as Exhibit P-3/1 /P.W.9. The formal FIR has been proved and marked as Exhibit 6/P.W.9. After taking over investigation, he had recorded the restatement of the informant and had also inspected the place of occurrence. He has proved the map of the place of occurrence which has been marked as Exhibit P-7/P.W.9. He had recorded the statement of the witnesses. He has proved the arrest memo which has been marked as Exhibit P-8/P.W.9. The victim was taken to Sadar Hospital, Gumla where she underwent a medical test. On 18-11-2022 he had got the statements of the victim and her mother recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He had obtained the proof of birth document from Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya where the

date of birth of the victim has been recorded as 19-04-2008. On completion of investigation, he had submitted charge sheet. The charge sheet has been proved and marked as Exhibit P-9/P.W.9.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not conducted an investigation on the point of delay in institution of First Information report.

14. P.W.10 Nirmala Barla has stated that on 18-11-2022, she had recorded the 164 Cr.P.C statement of the victim and her mother. She has proved both the statements which have been marked as Exhibit P-1/1 /PW10 and P-9/P.W.10.

15. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C in which he has denied the allegations levelled against him.

16. The defence has examined one witness in support of its case.

17. D.W.1 Santosh Bhagat @ Oraon has stated that a false case was instituted by the informant against the accused.

18. It has been submitted by Mr. Binit Chandra, learned counsel for the appellant that the delay in lodging the FIR has been sufficiently explained by the prosecution. Since the victim was threatened of not disclosing the incident to anyone and an assurance was also given by the family members of the accused/ respondent no.2 that the marriage between the victim and the respondent no. 2 shall be solemnized once the victim attains majority, the delay in instituting the F.I.R. had occurred. It has been submitted that the victim has given a vivid description of the occurrence and the manner in which she was subjected to rape by the respondent no.2. The medical report also does not rule out the possibility of sexual assault. It has been submitted that apart from P.W.1, the other witnesses have also supported the case of the prosecution.

19. Mr. N. K. Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 has submitted that apart from the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, the evidence of the victim (P.W.1) also

suffers from various contradictions. The learned trial court after giving detailed reasons on a meticulous examination of the evidence on record had acquitted the respondent no. 2 which does not necessitate any interference by this Court.

20. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides and have also perused the trial court record.

21. The informant claims that the victim was a minor when the respondent no. 2 is alleged to have committed rape upon her. The common thread which runs through the evidence of the prosecution is the delay in lodging the FIR. No cogent and convincing reasons have been forthcoming from these witnesses explaining the inordinate delay and whatever explanation has been submitted, the same is not at all trustworthy. The informant and his wife, who have been examined as P.W.4 and P.W.3 respectively, have categorically stated that the victim had disclosed about the incident to them after 3 months. Save and except a fleeting reference to the threat given by the respondent no. 2 to the victim not to disclose about the incident to anyone, there is no tangible substance in the evidence of P.W.1 to suggest a continuous threat to her.

22. It is an admitted fact that the house of the victim is situated in a congested area having several houses in the vicinity at a short distance. The entire incident as depicted by P.W.1 categorizes the nonchalant manner in which the respondent no. 2 had committed rape upon her as if being aware of the non-presence of the parents and sister of the victim when he had entered into the house of the victim which gives an altogether different hue to the allegations made. It also transpires from the cross-examination of P.W.1 that she was not alone in the house as her grand-parents were present but despite such fact they did not become aware of the incident which was going on. This would further strengthen the fact that "there is more to it than meets the eye". The other aspect of the case is the age of the victim. Although the school admission register was produced before the court but it has candidly been

admitted by P.W.8 that the entry of date of birth has been made on the basis of Aadhaar Card. No legally admissible certificate pertaining to the date of birth of the victim has been produced by the prosecution. The Medical Board has also not assessed the age of the victim. There is no iota of evidence suggestive of the victim being a minor at the time of the incident. The learned trial court has appropriately dealt with the evidence on record while acquitting the respondent no. 2 and there being no justifiable reasons to conclude otherwise, we dismiss this appeal.

23. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Dated: 06.04.2026 Shamim/-

Uploaded on: 09/04/2026