James Topno vs The State Of Jharkhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 3103 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

James Topno vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 April, 2026

Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

                                                  2026:JHHC:10905-DB


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
       Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 1590 of 2003

[Against the Judgment of conviction dated 27.09.2003 and Order of
sentence dated 29.09.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Gumla, in Sessions Trial No. 267 of
2002]

1. James Topno, son of Haroon Topno.
2. Rollen Topno, son of Nirmal Topno.
3. Amus Topno, son of Ishaque Topno.
            All residents of Village - Kotbo, Tukutoli, Police
   Station - Kamdara, District - Gumla.
                              ...       ...     Appellants
                       Versus
The State of Jharkhand        ...       ...    Respondent
                                .....

For the Appellants : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate.

Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate.

Mrs. Supriya Dayal, Advocate.

M/s Komal S. Nanjan, Advocate.

For the State : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, A.P.P. .......

P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA .....

Reserved On : 26.03.2026 Pronounced On :16/04/2026

Per Pradeep Kumar Srivastava

1. The instant criminal appeal is preferred by the above-

named appellants challenging the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 27.09.2003 /

29.09.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Gumla in Sessions Trial

No. 267 of 2002, whereby and whereunder, the

appellants have been held guilty for the offence

2026:JHHC:10905-DB

punishable under Section 376 (2)(g) of the I.P.C. and

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10

years along with fine of Rs. 1,000/- each with default

stipulation.

2. It is to be mentioned that appellant no. 4 namely,

Jollen Topno died during pendency of this appeal and

his appeal has been abate vide order dated

13.01.2026.

3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the

victim girl (P.W.-1) lodge a written report (Exhibit-1)

stating inter alia that on 18.08.2002, the victim girl

(informant) proceeded from her home along with her

sister and brother-in-law to Pokla Bazar (Gumla).

They were returning from market at about 6:00 P.M.

and reached near Raikera, in the meantime, all the

four accused persons named in the FIR (present

appellants) were sitting on the kalwat, caught hold of

the informant, then her sister and brother-in-law

attempted to rescue her, upon this all the accused

persons threatened to sister of informant that if you

want to flee away, you can do so, otherwise, you

would also be raped. Due to threatening of dire

consequences given by the accused persons, the

informant's sister and brother-in-law fled away

2026:JHHC:10905-DB

towards home. Thereafter, all the four accused

persons dragged the informant forcibly towards

bushes, inspite of her great protest and committed

rape on her. It is alleged that at first Jollen Topno

(now deceased) committed rape on her. Thereafter all

the three accused persons (present appellants)

committed rape upon her one by one. The accused

persons left her at 10:00 P.M. in night. She was under

severe pain, but any how reached the home and

narrated about the incident to her parents, sister and

brother-in-law. Her health was also deteriorated.

Hence, she lodged the written report at police station

on 23.08.2002.

4. On the basis of aforesaid written report of informant,

Kamdara P.S. Case No. 34 of 2002, dated 23.08.2002

was registered for the offence under Sections 376/34

of the I.P.C. and charge of investigation was given to

S.I. Raj Kishore Prasad Sinha, who after conclusion of

investigation, submitted charge sheet against all the

above-named accused persons for the offence under

Section 376 (2)(g) of the I.P.C. The case was

committed to the court of Sessions, where S.T. No.

267/2002 was registered. The accused persons

denied the charges leveled against them and claimed

2026:JHHC:10905-DB

to be tried, therefore, trial proceeded.

5. In course of trial, altogether seven witnesses were

examined by the prosecution.

Apart from oral testimony of above witnesses,

following documentary evidence have been adduced

by the prosecution:-

Exhibit-1 : Written report of the informant.

Exhibit-2 : Injury report of victim (P.W.-1).

Exhibit-3 : Formal F.I.R.

6. On the other hand, the case of defence is denial from

occurrence and false implication. However, no oral or

documentary evidence has been adduced by the

defence.

7. The learned trial court, after scrutinizing the evidence

led by the prosecution, arrived at conclusion about

guilt of appellants for the aforesaid offence and

sentenced them as stated above.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously

argued that all the witnesses examined by the

prosecution are highly interested witnesses and close

family members of the victim girl. The testimony of

witnesses suffer from material contradictions and

2026:JHHC:10905-DB

discrepancies causing doubt on their testimony. The

victim has been ravished by four persons, but her

medical injury report (Exhibit-2) has not been proved

by the conducting Doctor, who examined her, rather it

was formally proved by any other Doctor inmates. The

place of occurrence is also doubtful, as per evidence of

the witnesses, which was never identified by the

victim girl. Under such circumstances, non-

examination of Investigating Officer gives a serious jolt

to the prosecution case. The defence has also been

seriously prejudiced in its defence due to non-

examination of Investigating Officer. The learned trial

court has also failed to get explained the

incriminating circumstances appearing against each

accused persons separately, rather a compound

question has been put, which has been answered in

negative. No specific overt act has been attributed

against each of the appellants. The FIR was also

lodged after inordinate delay of 05 days and no

satisfactory explanation was offered except the

general plea that the victim became ill which also cast

serious doubt on the prosecution case. The time,

place and manner of occurrence, as alleged by the

victim itself, is doubtful, in view of the fact that she

2026:JHHC:10905-DB

was accompanied with her elder sister and brother-in-

law even at the time of occurrence, who instead of

going to lodge a case at nearest police station went to

their home and the victim girl reached at her home

after 10:00 P.M. in the night. Thus, the story

projected by the prosecution inherently suffers from

falsehood and not believable. It is further submitted

that it is a case of gang rape, but the medical

examination report of the victim although formally

proved by another Doctor does not corroborate the

version of prosecution.

9. It is further submitted that the appellants were all

along in judicial custody till the conclusion of trial

and were released on bail during pendency of this

appeal and have sustained considerable period of

imprisonment. Therefore, considering the fact that it

is a stale case more than 20 years old and the

appellants are on bail after undergoing incarceration

for long time. Therefore, the sentence awarded to the

appellants of 10 years R.I. may be reduced to the

imprisonment already undergone by them in the ends

of justice.

10. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf

of State has vehemently controverted the aforesaid

2026:JHHC:10905-DB

contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and has

submitted that the victim has no animus to falsely

implicate the appellants. She has categorically proved

the specific overt acts of all appellants in committing

ghastly sexual offence. Any discrepancy in the medical

report or otherwise non-examination of the

Investigating Officer does not affect the prosecution

case. It is trite that the conviction can be based upon

sole testimony of victim, if her evidence inspires

confidence and she appears to be wholly reliable.

11. In the instant case, the victim girl has been cross-

examined at length, but she has remained firm in her

cross-examination and her version appears to be

intact. Therefore, there is no reason to take different

view than the learned trial court. There is no legal

substance in the contentions raised on behalf of

appellants and no merits in this appeal, which is fit to

be dismissed.

12. In connection with quantum of sentence, it is argued

that the most heinous crime has been committed by

the appellants which is related to the dignity /

integrity of a woman. Therefore, appellants don't

deserve any leniency in the matter of sentence also

and this appeal is fit to be dismissed and the

2026:JHHC:10905-DB

conviction and sentence of appellants is fit to be

upheld and confirmed.

13. The only point for determination is that "as to whether

the impugned judgment of conviction and order of

sentence of appellant is legally sustainable or not?".

14. Before imparting our verdict on the above points, we

have to take brief resume of the evidences available on

record.

15. P.W.-1 is Victim Girl herself. She has corroborated

the contents of written report and stated that on

18.08.2002 at about 12:30 P.M., she proceeded to

Pokla Bazar along with her elder sister and brother-

in-law. She was returning with her sister and brother-

in-law from the market at about 6:00 P.M.,

meanwhile, she saw that at Raikera Pulia, four

accused persons were sitting. The accused persons

caught hold of her, then her sister and brother-in-law

wanted to rescue her, but they threatened them of

dire consequences and dragged this witness towards

bushes and at first, she was raped by Jollen Topno,

thereafter, all the three accused persons (present

appellants) committed rape on her one by one after

lifting her undergarments. The accused persons left

2026:JHHC:10905-DB

her at 10:00 P.M. She was under severe pain, but

anyhow, she returned to her home and narrated

about the incident to her parents, brother-in-law and

sister.

In her cross-examination, she has reiterated the

aforesaid incident and also disclosed her age about 15

years on the date of occurrence. She also admits that

the accused persons Jollen and James are her relative

and dewar of her sister Amlen. She also admits that

on the date of occurrence itself, she had purchased a

new bicycle from the Pokla market and was returning

with one bag rice.

She has also denied the suggestion of defence that the

accused persons stopped her and asked for sweets

because she has purchased new bicycle. She has also

denied that her marriage was about to be settled with

accused James, but due to some reason, marriage

could not be fixed. Hence, her father has lodged this

false case after four days of the occurrence against

accused persons.

16. P.W.-2 : Makdali Barla is the elder sister of the victim

girl. She has also corroborated the contents of FIR

and stated that on 18.08.2002, she along with her

younger sister (victim girl) and husband were

2026:JHHC:10905-DB

returning from Pokla market and reached near

Raikera then all the four accused persons caught hold

of the victim girl. She was also threatened that the

accused persons will commit rape with her also, if she

would not flee away, then she along with her husband

returned to her home and narrated the story to her

parents. She along with her husband again going to

search the victim girl, but in the night at about 10:00

P.M. she returned and told that all the four accused

persons have committed rape on her.

In her cross-examination, she admits that due to

threatening given by the accused persons, they did

not raise alarm and straight forward returned to their

home.

She has denied any talk of marriage of the victim

girl with Jollen. She has also denied any relationship

with Jollen and James. There is nothing else in her

cross-examination to rebut her aforesaid testimony.

17. P.W.-3 : Paulin Barla is the mother of the victim girl.

She has simply state that her daughter returned in

the night and disclosed that four accused persons had

committed rape with her while she was returning from

market.

2026:JHHC:10905-DB

In her cross-examination, she admits that the

victim girl was medically examined at Kamdara

Hospital.

She has denied any previous acquaintance with

the accused persons or any type of relationship with

them. She has denied that they were intending to

solemnize marriage of Jollen Topno with the victim

girl, which he dinied. Therefore, false case has been

lodged.

18. P.W.-4 : Mekhyle Barla is the father of the victim girl.

He has also stated that on the date of occurrence,

victim girl returned from market at about 10:00 P.M.

and disclosed that all the four accused persons have

committed rape on her. Thereafter, he along with his

daughter went to lodge a report, which was scribed by

his daughter herself.

In her cross-examination, he admits that after the

incident, his daughter became ill and therefore, FIR

was lodged after 05 days. He has not disclosed to the

villagers about the same. He was not acquaintance

with the accused persons prior to the occurrence. He

also states that his daughter studied till 9th standard

and thereafter, she left study. At present her age is in

between 16-17 years.

2026:JHHC:10905-DB

He has denied the suggestion of defence that the

marriage of victim girl could not be settled with Jollen,

hence, he lodged false case.

19. P.W.-5 : Lawrance Kerketta is the brother-in-law of

the victim girl. He has also stated that on 18.08.2002

at about 6:00 P.M. he was returning from market

along with victim girl and his wife and when they

reached near the Raikera Kerwat, four accused

persons caught hold of victim girl dragged towards

bushes, upon protest, they were threatened of dire

consequences, hence, due to fear, they returned

home. Again, he along with his wife were going to

search out the victim girl, but in the night at about

10:00 P.M. she returned and narrated about the

incident of commission of rape.

There is nothing in his cross-examination to rebut

his above testimony.

He has denied the suggestion of defence that

marriage of victim girl was broken with Jollen Topno,

hence, her father has lodged this false case.

20. P.W.-6 : Dr. Shakuntala Pandey, Medical Officer,

Sadar Hospital, Gumla has formally proved the

medical examination report of the victim, aged about

2026:JHHC:10905-DB

15 years, conducted by Dr. Shakuntala Tigga, Medical

Officer, PHC, Kamdara on 23.08.2002. She has

acquaintance with the handwriting and signature of

Dr. Shakuntala Tigga. Hence, she has proved the

medical report of the victim girl prepared by Dr.

Shakuntala Tigga as Exhibit-2 and she has also

deposed that as per Medical Report of the victim, it is

apparent that rape was committed with the victim

girl.

21. P.W.-7 : Munnu Singh, Advocate Clerk has proved

the formal FIR in the handwriting of ASI Raj Kishore

Prasad Sinha, which also bears the signature of then

Officer-in-Charge S.I. Ravindra Kumar, which is

marked as Exhibit-3.

22. We have given thoughtful consideration to the overall

aspects of the case. It is obvious that FIR was lodged

after 05 days' delay, but the reason for delay has been

reasonably explained by the victim girl, which was

also corroborated from the evidence of her mother

(P.W.-3) and father (P.W.-4), wherein they have stated

that after suffering such a ghastly offence, victim girl

was under severe pain and also got ill. She left food

and went under depression. Therefore, the plea of

delay in lodging the FIR taken by defence cannot be

2026:JHHC:10905-DB

considered to be vital in this case to cast any doubt

on the prosecution story. In the case of rape, the

evidence of victim girl stands on higher pedestal. She

can't be treated as accomplish but an injured witness.

23. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments has

observed that the sole evidence of victim of sexual

offence is sufficient for conviction of the accused

without further corroboration from any other

independent source, if her testimony is deemed

"wholly trustworthy", "unshakeable" and "inspires

confidence". The law does not require corroboration as

an absolute rule, rather, the focus is on the quality of

her evidence.

24. In the instant case, the evidence of victim girl, as

discussed above, suffers from no embellishment,

material contradictions or infirmities, rather she has

consistently proved her earliest version contained in

written report. She has been cross-examined at

length, but no inconsistency has appeared to cast any

doubt on the occurrence. The appellants by way of

suggestion have taken plea that she has purchased a

new cycle on the same day. Hence, they were asking

for sweets and further plea taken that the marriage

settlement talk was going on with Jollen Topno

2026:JHHC:10905-DB

(deceased appellant), which was broken. Hence, her

father lodged this case to teach a lesson to the

accused persons are absurd suggestions which don't

affect the core of the prosecution case. Moreover, no

such defence plea has been proved or brought on

record to disbelieve the unrebutted evidence of the

victim girl. The victim has not been cross-examined to

dispute the place of occurrence or manner in which

she was ravished. It also appears that the testimony

by other witnesses of facts namely, P.W.-2 sister of

the victim, P.W.-3 mother of the victim, P.W.-4 father

of the victim and P.W.-5 brother-in-law of the victim

have also consistently supported the version of the

victim girl. There may be unnatural conduct on the

part of elder sister and brother-in-law, who

accompanied the victim at the time of going market

and returning therefrom, but the same cannot be

treated as fatal to the prosecution. These witnesses

belonged to tribal communities and under threat

acted in their own manner as repercussion to the

incident. The unusual or unnatural conduct of sister

and brother-in-law of the victim girl cannot / should

not affect the prosecution story as narrated by the

sufferer of the crime, who happens to be a tender year

2026:JHHC:10905-DB

girl, about 15-16 years at the time of occurrence.

25. We also find that in the evidence of any of the

witnesses of facts including the victim girl examined

in this case, the defence has elicited no contradiction

from their earlier statement recorded under Section

161 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the

plea of appellants that they were seriously prejudiced

in their defence by non-examination of I.O. cannot be

sustained in this case, inasmuch as no contradiction

has been pointed in the evidence of witnesses during

their cross-examination.

26. So far non-examination of doctor, who conducted

medical examination of the victim is concerned, it is

trite that an expert's evidence is always corroborative

and not substantive piece of evidence, although

medical report of the victim proved by another doctor

goes to show that as per her medical examination

report, rape was committed with the victim. Even if it

may be assumed that the medical report is not proved

by the competent witness, the same does not affect

the prosecution case in the matter of rape cases. The

testimony of victim herself reign supreme requiring no

corroborative evidence, if her testimony is wholly

truthful and reliable.

2026:JHHC:10905-DB

27. We have also gone through the judgment of the

learned trial court and find that every aspect of the

matter has been well-considered. The victim girl has

been found wholly reliable and her testimony suffers

from no embellishment. Defence has simple denial

from occurrence and false implication. Therefore, we

don't find any error of law in the impugned judgment

of conviction of the appellants for the offence of gang

rape.

28. So far quantum of sentence is concerned, the

minimum sentence prescribed under law is rigorous

imprisonment of 10 years along with fine, therefore,

the learned trial court has awarded minimum

sentence to the appellants, therefore, appears no

extra-ordinary or special reasons to take a different

view and award lesser sentence to the appellants for

such a serious and heinous offence. There is no

extenuating circumstances or any mitigating

circumstances to be considered in favour of

appellants for reducing the sentence.

29. In view of the aforesaid discussions and reasons, we

find no merits in this appeal, which stands

dismissed.

2026:JHHC:10905-DB

30. The appellants are on bail, hence, their bail bonds are

cancelled and they are directed to surrender before

the concerned trial court within two months from the

date of this judgment and undergo the remaining part

of sentence awarded to them, failing which the

learned trial court shall take all coercive steps for

their arrest and detention for the purpose of suffering

the remaining sentence.

31. Pending I.A., if any, stand disposed of.

32. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court

record be sent back to the court concerned for

information and needful immediately.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, the 16 t h April, 2026.

Sunil / N.A.F.R. Uploaded On 17/04/2026