[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Manarul Sk vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 April, 2026
2026:JHHC:10262
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 425 of 2009
[Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated
31.03.2009, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge,
Pakur, in Sessions Case No. 101 of 2008 ]
Manarul Sk., S/o Ahmad Ali, resident of Village - Nawada,
P.S.- Pakur (M), District - Pakur.
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
.....
For the Appellant : Ms. Anjana Rana, Advocate.
Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Prabir Chatterjee, Spl.P.P.
.....
P R E S E N T
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
Dated 09.04.2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Present criminal appeal is preferred against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
31.03.2009 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions
Judge, Pakur in Sessions Case No. 101 of 2008,
whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been held
guilty for the offence under Section 448 and 376/511
of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo S.I. for six
months for the offence under Section 448 of the I.P.C.
and R.I. of five years for the offence under Section
376/511 of the I.P.C.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on
2026:JHHC:10262
19.02.2008, the victim girl, aged about 17 years was
sleeping at her house in the night and at about 11:00
P.M., the appellant trespassed into her house with
plastic torch and started removing her sari and tried
to commit rape with her, then the victim girl woke up
and raised alarm, thereafter the mother of the victim
girl reached there and caught hold the appellant. On
hulla, parents of the appellant also arrived there and
released the appellant. On the next day, a village
Panchayat was called for in the Village for the
immoral act of the accused and it was suggested that
the appellant should marry with the victim girl and
the parents of the appellant had also assured, but the
uncle of the appellant denied for the marriage and the
marriage could not be solemnized. Thereafter, on the
basis of fardbeyan of the victim girl, Pakur (M) P.S.
Case No. 28/2008 was instituted for the offence
under Sections 452 and 376/511 of the I.P.C.
4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was
submitted against the above-named sole accused.
Accordingly, cognizance of the offence was taken and
the case was committed to the court of Sessions for
trial and disposal. On 30.07.2008, charge under
Section 452 and 376/511 of the I.P.C. was framed
against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried.
2026:JHHC:10262
5. In course of trial, altogether seven witnesses have
been examined by the prosecution. Apart from oral
testimony of the witnesses, following documentary
evidences have been brought on record:-
Exhibit-1 : Fardbeyan.
Exhibit-2 : Formal F.I.R.
6. The case of defence is denial from occurrence and
false implication. No witness has been examined on
behalf of defence. However, only one documentary
evidence has been adduced on behalf defence, which
is as follows:
Exhibit-A - C.C. of charge sheet of G.R. Case No.
657/2007.
7. After conclusion of trial, the appellant was held guilty
and sentenced as stated above.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that
the appellant is wrongly convicted for the offence
under Sections 376 read with 511 of the I.P.C. No
specific over act has been attributed towards
commission of rape with the victim girl, who is alleged
to be under love affairs with the appellant. There is
simple allegation that in the night, present appellant
entered into the house of the victim girl (P.W.-6) lifted
her sari and wanted to commit rape with the victim
girl, but in the meantime, the victim girl raised alarm
2026:JHHC:10262
and her mother came and appellant was caught,
thereafter villagers were also assembled and talk of
marriage took place, but the uncle of the present
appellant has denied from the marriage. Therefore,
this case was lodged after 14 days. It has further been
submitted that the core prosecution story is centered
round due to non-solemnization of marriage of the
victim girl with the appellant. The story of entering
into the house of the informant and other incidents
are concocted. No valid explanation has been offered
by prosecution for such inordinate delay in lodging
the FIR.
9. In alternative, it is argued that at best the case falls
under Section 354 of the I.P.C. instead of Section 376
read with 511 of the I.P.C. The appellant has already
remained in custody for more than one year during
trial and post-conviction and has sufficiently been
punished for his guilt. Therefore, the appellant may
be sentenced for the period of imprisonment already
undergone, instead of imprisonment as awarded to
him by concerned trial court.
10. Per contra, learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State
has defended the impugned judgment on merits, but
in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be
able to explain as to how the offence under Sections
376/511 of the I.P.C. is constituted in this case.
2026:JHHC:10262
11. I have gone through the record of the case,
particularly, the evidence of P.W.-6, who happens to
be victim of this case. She has simply stated about
lifting of sari by the appellant and try to commit rape
with her but in the meantime, she raised alarm and
her mother intercepted and caught hold the accused.
Thereafter, talk of marriage started with the family
members of the present appellant. It is alleged that
the parents of appellant were ready for solemnization
of marriage with the victim, but his uncle denied,
therefore, matter cannot be materialized and this case
was lodged after 14 days. The totality of circumstance,
even if taken to be true, the offence under Sections
376/511 of the I.P.C. is not constituted in this case as
there is no specific overt act towards commission of
rape with the victim, rather this case falls under
Section 354 of the I.P.C.
12. In view of the above discussions and reasons, the
conviction of the appellant for the offence under
Section 376/511 of the I.P.C. is set aside and is
altered to Sections 354 / 448 of the I.P.C. Under the
aforesaid circumstances, this appeal is dismissed on
merits with modification in conviction from Section
376/511 to Section 354 of the I.P.C.
13. So far sentence of the appellant is concerned, the
appellant has already undergone imprisonment of one
2026:JHHC:10262
year during pendency of the case. Under the aforesaid
circumstances, the appellant is sentenced for his guilt
to the imprisonment already undergone by him.
14. Appellant is on bail, as such he is discharged from the
liability of bail bond. Sureties are also discharged.
15. Pending I.A., if any, stand disposed of.
16. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court
record be sent back to the court concerned for
information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated, the 9 t h April, 2026.
Sunil / N.A.F.R.
Uploaded On 15/04/2026
