Chhotu Gope vs The State Of Jharkhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 1338 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Chhotu Gope vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 February, 2026

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen, Gautam Kumar Choudhary

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                        Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1145 of 2022
                                    -----
            Chhotu Gope, S/o Mahipal Gope, R/o Village- Khora- Bhakuwa Toli,
            P.O. Khora & P.S. Gumla, District Gumla, Jharkhand
                                                      ... Appellant(s).
                                    Versus
            The State of Jharkhand
                                                      ... Respondent(s).

            CORAM       :      SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

------

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, Advocate Mr. Ankur Anand, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, AddI. P.P. .........

15 /19.02.2026: I.A. No.14889 of 2025 This interlocutory application has been filed by the appellant, praying therein to suspend the sentence and release him on bail during the pendency of this appeal.

2. This is a second attempt of the appellant praying for suspension of sentence and release on bail during the pendency of this appeal.

3. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced in connection with in Children Case No.03 of 2019, arising out of Gumla P.S. Case No.161 of 2018, for the offence under Section 376(D) of IPC. He has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 20 years as well as fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence under Section 376(D) of IPC.

4. Heard, the learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the State and have gone through the impugned judgment, the evidence and the Trial Court Records.

5. Opportunity was given to the State to oppose the bail, which the State availed and opposed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argues and

submits that the case will not fall within the purview of Section 376D of IPC when the allegation in the F.I.R. is that rape has been committed by only one person i.e., the appellant. It is his arguments that if the case do not fall within the purview of Section 376D of IPC then the entire trial is vitiated. He further submits that even for the sake of argument, if this Court holds that the case falls under Section 376 of IPC, the appellant has already remained in custody for eight years and the minimum sentence for 376 of IPC is 10 years. The counsel insisted upon this Court to decide the issue now. He submits that the other co- accused person has also not even been sent up for trial till today. It is not known as to what happened to the investigation so far as that accused, namely, Santosh Gope is concerned. He submits that FIR was lodged after three days.

7. To answer the point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, brief fact is necessary to be noted. The F.I.R. is at the instance of the prosecutrix herself, who is PW-3. She stated that she and her cousin sister on 10.06.2018, went to eat chowmin. While they were returning and approach near Cheli Tangra, Chhotu Gope (this appellant) and one Santosh Gope overpowered her, gaged her mouth and taken her towards the bushes. The younger sister fled due to fear and thereafter, victim stated that Chhotu Gope ravished her and Santosh Gope caught hold of her hand while Chhotu Gope was ravishing her.

8. On this background, the appellant raises the question and seeks answer of the same that this is not a case of Gang rape as there is no whisper in the entire F.I.R. that the rape was committed by two persons.

9. Section 376D of IPC defines Gang rape. It is necessary to quote Section 376(D), which is hereunder: -

"376D. Gang rape.--Where a woman is raped by one or more persons constituting a group or acting in furtherance of a common intention, each of those persons shall be deemed to have committed the offence of rape and shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to life which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and with fine:

Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of the victim:

Provided further that any fine imposed under this section shall be paid to the victim."

10. The opening lines of the definition of Gang rape starts by mentioning that "when women is raped by one or more persons". This clearly suggests that even if person is raped only by only one person, Section 376D of IPC can be attracted. This provision can be attracted where there is more than one person, who are acting in furtherance of the common intention. If any person acts in furtherance of common intention, then each of the persons shall be deemed to have committed rape. Thus, the definition itself makes it clear that in the case of rape, act by one and supported by any other/associate is enough to render the act to come within the definition of Gang rape to implicate all.

11. Gang rape is established if one rapes and other helps. This shows that the group action is in furtherance of common intention to rape. Penetration by one is sufficient, there is no need for all to committee rape, helping the main person will also attract and bring the act within the definition of Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, in this case, we are convinced that this case is covered by 376D of the Indian Penal Code.

12. So far as the evidence is concerned, the witness i.e. victim PW-3 and the younger sister also supported the entire prosecution case.

13. Thus, we are not inclined to release the appellant on bail.