[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Mrs. Vaishaly Srivastava vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 April, 2026
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
2026:JHHC:9992
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 801 of 2025
-----
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 20.05.2025 and order of sentence
dated 23.05.2025 passed in Sessions Trial No. 68 of 2021 arising out of
Kowali P.S. Case No. 34 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. No. 1981 of 2020 by
Mrs. Vaishaly Srivastava, District & Additional Sessions Judge-VII, East
Singhbhum, Jamshedpur)
Bhuktu Hembram, aged about 23 years S/o Ram Chandra Hembram R/o Asur
Ghati, Mayurbhanj, PS+PO Tiring, District Mayurbhanj, Odisha
--- --- Appellant
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.XXXX(Victim) --- --- Respondents
.......
For the Appellant : Ms. Tejaswi, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
JUDGMENT
08.04.2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, who has appeared
through JHCLSC and learned A.P.P. representing the State.
2. The present appeal has been preferred against judgment of
conviction dated 20.05.2025 and order of sentence dated 23.05.2025
passed in Sessions Trial No. 68 of 2021 arising out of Kowali P.S.
Case No. 34 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. No. 1981 of 2020 by the
learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-VII, East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 323 and 326 of the IPC and has been
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year under section 323 IPC and further
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years with a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in
1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 801 of 2025
2026:JHHC:9992
default of paymnent of fine, further S.I. for 1 month. All the
substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
3. The criminal law has been put into motion on lodging an F.I.R
being Kowali P.S. Case No. 34 of 2020 by the informant before the
Officer In-charge, Kowali Police Station, East Singhbhum on
08.08.2020.
The brief story as per the prosecution is that the informant-
cum-prosecutrix was in love affair with the accused Bhuktu
Hembram, who had sexually exploited her since last four years. When
the prosecutrix pressurized him to solemnize marriage, the accused
brought her to Kashiyabeda Jungle, strangulate her with her dupatta
and thrashed a stone on her head, due to which she got unconscious.
The accused finding her dead, fled away. Later on the villagers, on
seeing the victim lying in the forest brought her in the village and
informed to her relatives about the incident and also that the accused
has also taken away Rs. 50,000/-. Subsequently, Kowali P.S. Case No.
34/2020 was registered under Sections 323, 341, 325, 307, 376 & 379
of the IPC. ASI Bittu Tuddu was entrusted with the investigation.
4. The Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet being
Charge Sheet No. 45 of 2020 under Section 323, 341, 325, 307, 376 &
379 of the IPC against the sole accused Bhuktu Hembram.
Accordingly, cognizance was taken vide order dated 22.12.2020 in
connection with G.R. No. 1981 of 2020 and the case was committed
to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 05.02.2021.
5. Accordingly, charge under Sections under Section 341, 323,
307, 325, 379 & 376(1) of the IPC was framed on 24.03.2021 against
the accused which was explained to the accused- appellant to which
he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The statement under
Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded on 11.12.2024 in which the
accused denied the allegations levelled upon him and claimed false
2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 801 of 2025
2026:JHHC:9992
implication.
6. To substantiate the prosecution charge, altogether eight (8)
prosecution witnesses have been examined:
I. P.W.1(Meghlal Tuddu @ Mekhlal Tuddu) - He has
deposed in his examination-in-chief that the incident is of
07.08.2020 in the evening at about 6 to 7 P.M. He has stated
that Kunwar Hembram came before him and asked him to
accompany him to Kashiyabera as he has got information
that his sister is in critical condition. Thereafter they along
with Manik Lal Tudu, Kunwar Hembram and Dulal Tuddu
reached at the place of occurrence and found the victim
lying in an injured condition and blood was oozing from her
head. After putting a bandage, she was taken to the Sadar
Hospital for treatment where she informed that accused-
Bhauktu Hembram is responsible for her condition. He has
sexually exploited her on false promise of marriage and
when she pressurized him to get marry, he called her at the
Kasiabera forest and during conversation strangulated her
with dupatta and assaulted her with stone to which she
became unconscious and finding her dead the accused fled
away taking away her mobile and Rs.50,000/-. He denied to
identify the accused present through V.C as he has only
heard his name through the victim. In his cross examination,
he has deposed that his testimony is based on hearsay facts
and he has not witnessed the incident through his eyes.
II. P.W.2(Kunwar Hembram) - He has deposed in his
examination-in-chief that the victim is his sister and
occurrence took place between 5.30 to 7.00 P.M. on
07.08.2020. He was at his village when he got information
that his sister is lying at Kasiyabera village in an injured
3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 801 of 2025
2026:JHHC:9992
condition, then he along-with Manik Lalo Tuddu, Mekhlal
Tuddu went to Kasiyabera and found his sister in an injured
condition who stated him that Bhuktu Hembram is
exploiting her on false promise of marriage from last four
years. He called her at the forest and strangulated her as well
as injured her head and fled away by taking away Rs.
50,000/- and her mobile. He took his sister to hospital for
treatment thereafter to Kowali police station and lodged the
case. The written application was prepared by him as
instructed by his sister, wherein his sister put her LTI and he
himself made his signatures upon the same. He identified the
same which is marked as Ext. 1 and stated that police has
taken his statement. Further he has deposed that it is true to
be said that he has given his statement to the police in the
manner that his sister has informed that Bhuktu Hembram is
sexually exploiting her from last 4 years on false promise of
marriage. Similar facts were mentioned by him in the
written application. He identified the accused present
through VC and stated that he saw him first time in the
Kowali P.S. when he was arrested. In the cross-examination
he deposed that his sister resides with him and he look after
her. She used to work as a farmer and his testimonies are all
hearsay facts as he did not witness the occurrence. He has
firstly seen the accused Bhuktu Hembram in the Kowali
Police station and today through V.C for the second time.
III. P.W.3 Manik Lal Tuddu - He deposed in his examination-
in-chief that on 07.08.2020 Kunwar Hembram was informed
by the villagers of Kasiabera at about 6:00P.M. that his sister
is Iving at the Kasiabera in an injured condition, then he
along-with his son Mekhlal Tuddu, Kunwar Hembram went
4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 801 of 2025
2026:JHHC:9992
there and found the victim was injured. She was treated by
the villagers through a local doctor and thereafter went to
MGM hospital where she informed that Bhuktu Hembram is
exploiting her on false promise of marriage for the last 4
years. He called her at the forest, strangulated her as well as
injured her head and fled away taking away Rs. 50,000/- and
her mobile. He identified the accused present through V.C.
In his cross-examination he deposed that he did not witness
the incidence and his testimony is based on hearsay facts,
though his statement was recorded by Kowali Police station
on the date on which the case was lodged. He did not visited
MGM hospital with the victim and saw Bhuktu Hembram
first time in the police station and second time today through
VC in the court.
IV. P.W.4 Victim-cum-prosecutrix- She has deposed in her
examination-in-chief that she knows Bhuktu Hembram.
Once he called her at his house and sexually exploited her
for 4 years on the promise of marriage and whenever she
asked him to marry, he always gave excuses. On 07.08.2020
he told her that he will take her to his village Asurgarhia
Parsagora. She accompanied him but as they reached the
Kasiabera forest he raped her, strangulated her with her
dupatta and assaulted on her head with stone due to which
she became unconscious. The accused, on feeling that she
might have died, fled way. At about 5:00 PM. the villagers
of Kasiabera took her and informed to her family, upon
which her brother Kunwar Hembram came and took her to
his house from where she went to Kowali Police station. On
her instruction her brother prepared the written application
and she put her LTI. From police station, she was sent for
5 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 801 of 2025
2026:JHHC:9992
treatment at MGM hospital where she got treated for three
days. Her statement U/s 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded in court
where she put her LTI. There she identified the accused
present through VC. In cross-examination she deposed that
she has visited police station with her brother; written
application was made by her brother because she is not
literate and it was read over to her. Further she has deposed
that she knew the accused before the incident and they had
love relationship due to which physical relationship was also
established with her consent. She has visited house of
Bhuktu Hembram at Jajpur before the occurrence. Police has
taken her statement but she could not remember the date and
time of the incident and she was not aware that accused is
already married having two daughters. Further she deposed
that it is true to be said that she was in love affair with
Bhuktu Hembram from last four years and the physical
relations made between them were completely consensual
and she has filed this case because Bhuktu Hemram did not
want to marry her due to same gotra.
V. P.W.5 Baddu Murmu & P.W.6 Lakhan Kisko both have
been declared hostile by the prosecution itself as they have
not supported its case.
VI. P.W.7 ASI Bittu Tuddu is the Investigating Officer of the
case who has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on
08.08.2020 he was posted at Kowali Police station as ASI
and received the charge of investigation of this case on the
direction of officer-in-charge namely Satrughan Paswan. He
firstly perused statement of the victim-cum-informant, thyen
visited the place of occurrence and inspected it. The place of
occurrence is about 20 K.M. south east from the Kowali
6 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 801 of 2025
2026:JHHC:9992
police station. Further he recorded the re-statement of the
victim-cum-informant and statements of witnesses namely
Kunwar Hembram, Manik Lal Tuddu and Mekhlal Tuddu,
who all supported the occurrence. He has conducted medical
examination of the victim on 06.10.2020 in his presence and
received the semen sample in sealed envelope from the
doctor and sent it for chemical examination on 07.10.2020.
He arrested the accused Bhuktu Hembram from his Sasural
at village Narda on 21.10.2020 and prepared the arrest
memo. He has identified his writing and signature as his
own and the same is marked as Ext.P2. He received the
medical examination report of the victim from MGM
hospital. On 01.12.2020 he received the medical report from
CHC Potka through station writer and entered it in the case
diary. On 07.12.2020 he received the injury report from
Sadar Hospital East Singhbhum, entered the opinion of the
doctor in the case diary. On 13.12.2020 he recorded the
statements of witnesses Lakhan Kisku, Bibijan Sardar,
Bangu Murmu and all supported the occurrence. In his
presence on 17.12.2020 statement U/s 164 CrPC of the
victim has been recorded and thereafter he submitted the
charge-sheet no. 45 of 2020 dt; 18.12.2020 Us 323, 341,
325, 307, 376 and 379 of IPC against named accused
Bhuktu Hembram. Further he identified the endorsement of
written application by the then officer-in-charge marked as
Ext. P1/1. The formal FIR is marked as Ext. P3, final form
in his own writing and signature along with signatures of the
then officer-in-charge marked as Ext. P4. In his cross-
examination he deposed that the occurrence took place on
07.08.2020 whereas F.IR was lodged on 08.08.2020 and
7 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 801 of 2025
2026:JHHC:9992
there is no explanation of that one-day delay. Further he has
stated that he has not recovered any material or weapon or
mud with blood from the place of occurrence regarding said
assault indeed he has neither recovered any article in this
case nor taken any LTI during his investigation. He has
neither prepared any site map of the place of occurrence nor
taken any photographs. He has firstly sent the victim with
her brother for injury report on 06.10.2020 but has not
mentioned this fact in the case diary and has sent the victim
for medical examination after two months of the occurrence
but has not mentioned the reason of delay in the case diary.
After four months of the occurrence, he arranged to record
the statement of victim U/s 164 Cr.P.C. from the court again
but not mentioned reason of delay in the case diary. It is true
that he neither recorded any statement nor confessional
statement of the accused.
VII. P.W.8 Dr. Anita Samant - she has deposed in her
examination-in-chief that on 06.10.2020 she was posted as
Medical officer in Potka CHC. On that day by the order of
M.O. in-charge Potka, she has examined the victim and
found the following:
On the person of the victim:-
1.No mark of violence found on body and private parts.
2.P/V- introits admit two finger, no redness no tenderness no
bleeding found.
3.Vaginal smear swab examination done on MGM Medical
college Patho. Dept. Jamshedpur. The report shows no
spermatozoa seen in the supplied vaginal swab smear
examination.
The doctor has opined that
8 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 801 of 2025
2026:JHHC:9992
i. Sexual intercourse has taken place
ii. Estimated age of the victim is about 19 years and
above.
iii. She identified the medical report prepared by her in
her hand writing and it bears her signature, and marked
as Ext.P5.
In cross-examination she has deposed that it is true that
she has done the medical checkup of the victim after two
months from filing the FIR. Whereas generally the
biological evidence of such incident could be found from the
body of the victim within 24 hours of the occurrence and
any opinion with regard to any such incident could only be
given by the doctors on the basis of condition of private part
and injuries on the person of said victim that too within 24
hours otherwise it is not possible. She did not found any
injury on the body of the victim while examination. She has
further denied that despite not finding any injury on the
body of victim after two months of the occurrence she has
wrongfully mentioned her opinion that sexual intercourse
has been done with the victim. During medical examination
of the victim she found the hymen/ vagina found loose, thus
she opined that sexual intercourse had taken place.
7. After conducting full-fledged trial, the learned Trial Court has
convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant at the very outset has
submitted that though the appellant has already served out his
sentence, however, he is contesting the case as his conviction would
cast a stigma upon him. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued
the case on the following terms: -
9 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 801 of 2025
2026:JHHC:9992
(i) Referring to Section 326 IPC, it has been stated that since
the weapon of crime was stone and as such, the
ingredients of Section 326 IPC is not present and the
conviction under the said Section is bad in law.
(ii) So far as conviction under Sections 323 and 326 of the
IPC are concerned, there is no injury report rather the
injury report allegedly contained in the case diary has
been relied upon by the Court which is per se illegal.
(iii) For this purpose, she has referred to paragraph No.23 of
the impugned judgment, which reads as under: -
23. Now come to appreciate the requirement of
section 307, 325 ,379 and 341. In this regard it is
further found that the medical examination or injury
report of the victim has not been exhibited by the
prosecution still the injury report attached with the
diary at para по. 59 of CD have been perused by
this court with intention to give a fair trial through
which it has been found that it is clearly mentioned
in para no. 59 of the C.D. that "injury no. 1 and 2 is
simple, subsidiary injury-X ray report shows no any
bony injury" and in the chart prepared for these
injuries for injury no. 3 it is mentioned that stitched
wound front side and type of injury simple. These
mentions of the medical examination report are
further suggesting that there is no concrete material
to frame the opinion with regard to attract
ingredients of section 307 or 325 of IPC,
additionally in presence of the facts deposed by the
I.O that he has not recovered or seized any weapon
or blood stain from the said place of occurrence. So
far as section 341 is concerned there is no fact at
even deposed or brought by the prosecution to
attract this offence. Further the offence U/s 379 of
IPC is concerned as it has already discussed above
that there is clear contradiction that in the F.I.R and
statement recoded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the
Victim there is no mention abut any theft of any
article or money but it has been improvised by
P.W.1, 2 and 3 but it has not been supported or
corroborated by P.W.4 i.e., the proscutrix herself,
10 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 801 of 2025
2026:JHHC:9992
indeed she was the only victim and eye witness too.
Therefore, there is no substantive fact or martial
could b brought to attract the ingredient of section
379 of IPC against the accused.
(iv) It has further been submitted that even the evaluation of
evidence suggests that there is enough contradiction and
the doctor has not found any past injury on the person of
the alleged victim.
9. Based on the aforesaid ground, learned counsel for the appellant
has submitted that the impugned judgment is bad in law and the
appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charges leveled against him.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence and also submits
that the trial court has not committed any error in convicting the
appellant as the prosecutrix- P.W. 4 has fully supported the
prosecution version in her deposition, but she could not point out any
material evidencing any injury. She has fairly admitted that the case
diary relied upon for conviction is per se illegal.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from
perusal of the records, it appears that there is no injury report on
record. Further, the ingredient of Sections 323 and 326 IPC, both are
missing. The Trial Court has committed patent illegality by relying
upon the case diary which is not permissible at all. So far as the
statement of the victim P.W.4 who has supported the prosecution
version, the same has not been accepted by the learned Trial Court
and disbelieved the main allegation.
12. In view of the above discussion, the impugned judgment of
conviction dated 20.05.2025 and order of sentence dated 23.05.2025
passed in Sessions Trial No. 68 of 2021 arising out of Kowali P.S.
Case No. 34 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. No. 1981 of 2020 by the
learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-VII, East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur is hereby, quashed and set-aside.
11 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 801 of 2025
2026:JHHC:9992
13. Since the appellant has already served out the sentence, there is
no need of passing any further order. In the result, the present
Criminal Appeal stands allowed and accordingly disposed of.
14. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned
forthwith, along with the copy of this judgment.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Dated 8th April 2026
A. Mohanty/Raja
Jharkhand High Court
Uploaded
___/____/2026
12 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 801 of 2025
