[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Anand Kumar Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 26 February, 2026
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
2026:JHHC:5645-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 856 of 2003
------
1. Anand Kumar Mahto, Son of Ram Subuman,
2. Mangi Lal Mahto, Son of Govind Mahto,
Both residents of Village Raikera, P.S. Manoharpur, Dist.
Singhbhum West/Jharkhand ... ... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 726 of 2003
------
1. Yudhisther Mahato, Son of Late Kalicharan Mahato,
2. Nishikant Mahato, Son of Late Bedeshi Mahato,
Both residents of Village Raikera, P.S. Manoharpur, Dist.
Singhbhum West/Jharkhand ... .... .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
------
For the Appellants : Mr. B.M. Tripathy, Sr. Advocate
(In Cr. A. (DB) No. 856 of 2003)
Mr. R.P. Gupta, Advocate
(In Cr. A. (DB) No. 726 of 2003)
For the Resp. State : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, APP
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
------
CAV On 13/01/2026 Pronounced On 26 /02/2026
Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. Both the instant criminal appeals are preferred for setting aside
the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
30.04.2003 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, West
2026:JHHC:5645-DB
Singhbhum at Chaibasa in S.T. No. 75 of 2002 whereby and
whereunder the appellants have been held guilty and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years along with a fine of Rs.
1000/- each with default stipulation for the offence under
Section 376 (2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code.
2. We have already heard the arguments of Mr. B.M. Tripathy,
learned Sr. counsel and Mr. R.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the
appellants and learned APP for the State.
Factual Matrix:-
3. The factual matrix giving rise to these appeals is that the
informant-cum-victim aged about 14 years was a student of
class-VI. On 03.12.2001, at about 4:00 PM, the victim girl
proceeded to her village Jharbera from Gopipur to bring
grocery articles etc. on her cycle. It is alleged that when she
reached near Trila Chowk, she met with one Javni Toppo
(P.W.-2), aged about 18 years and gave lift to her on her cycle.
It is further alleged that near Raikera, both the girl alighted
from the cycle and started moving on foot due to hillock road.
In the meantime, Mangilal Mahto, Postman-Raikera along with
Udhisther Mahto @ Compounder Mahto, Anand Mahto and
Nishikant Mahto, all residents of Raikera started chasing both
the girls, who were running to some distance but got tired and
fell down along with her cycle. It is alleged that informant's
girlfriend anyhow escaped from accused persons and fled
2026:JHHC:5645-DB
away but the informant-cum-victim girl was caught and lifted
by Mangilal, Udhisther, Anand and Nishikant, who gaged her
mouth and brought towards Lokra Huri Hillock in a bushy
area, laid her down on earth, untying her under garments, all
the four persons committed rape on her, one by one, as a result
of which, she became unconscious.
It is further alleged that when the victim girl regained
consciousness, she saw that accused persons had fled away.
Upon raising alarm by her, one Raju Samad (P.W.-4) of Village
Raikera arrived and helped her serving water from a pond and
brought the victim at her maternal grandmother's home at
village Jharbera, nearly about 12 o'clock at night. The
informant narrated the above incident to her maternal
grandmother (P.W.-5) and in the next morning, she went to her
home and disclosed about occurrence to her parents. It is
further alleged that on that day, marriage engagement of Javni
Toppo (P.W.-2) was fixed, hence matter could not be reported
to police and the F.I.R. was lodged on 06.12.2001.
On the basis of above information, F.I.R. was
registered as Manoharpur P.S. Case No. 56/2001 dated
06.12.2001 for the offences under sections 376(g) of IPC
After conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was
submitted for the offence under Section 376 (g) of the IPC.
2026:JHHC:5645-DB
The case was committed to the Court of Sessions where
S.T. No. 75 of 2002 was registered. The appellants denied from
the charges and claimed to be tried.
4. In the course of trial, altogether 11 witnesses were examined
by the prosecution.
P.W.-1 Informant-cum-victim
P.W.-2 Javni Toppo
P.W.-3 Dr. Deep Sikha Verma
P.W.-4 Raju Samad
P.W.-5 Saundi Toppo
P.W.-6 Anjala Kachhap
P.W.-7 John Paul Kachhap
P.W.-8 Banu Toppo
P.W.-9 Nandoya Kachhap
P.W.-10 Hemant Kr. Lakara
P.W.-11 S.I. Srikant Singh (I.O.)
5. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following
documentary evidence has also been adduced by the
prosecution: -
Ext.-1 to Ext. 1/1 Signature of Victim-cum-
Informant on F.I.R.
Ext. ½ Signature of Nandowa
Kachhap on F.I.R.
Ext.-2 Medical Certificate (Report)
Ext.-3 Signature of Witness Hemant
Kr. Lakara on Seizure List
Ext.-3/1 Signature of witness on
Seizure List
Ext.-4 F.I.R.
2026:JHHC:5645-DB
Ext.-5 Seizure List
6. On the other hand, the case of defence is denial form occurrence
and false implication. However, no oral or documentary
evidence has been adduced by the defence.
7. The learned trial Court after evaluating the evidence available
on record arrived at conclusion of guilt of the appellants and
convicted them as stated above which has been assailed in this
Appeal.
Submissions on behalf of appellants: -
8. Assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the
appellants has raised following points: -
(i) There is delay of two days in lodging the F.I.R. without
offering any cogent and reliable explanation. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, unexplained delay of two days
renders the entire prosecution story as fabricated and concocted
one.
(ii) There are material contradictions and infirmities in the
evidence of prime witnesses namely P.W.-1, Victim, P.W.-2
Javni Toppo and P.W.-4, Raju Samad, who have been declared
hostile by the prosecution as regards the commission of rape
with the victim.
(iii) It is admitted by the victim girl that she was not
acquainted by name and face with the accused persons, her
story about identification of accused persons is absolutely
2026:JHHC:5645-DB
unreliable. No TIP was conducted in this case to identify the
accused persons.
(iv) The victim was medically examined after three days of
the occurrence and no mark of injury was found on her body
either internal or external. She has been opined in the habit of
sexual intercourse but in her cross-examination, she has stated
that it was the first time when her virginity was broken.
(v) The manner in which the occurrence is alleged to be
happened cannot be believed at all. The victim has stated that
after first commission of rape with her, she became unconscious,
then other accused persons also committed rape with her. She
regained consciousness, then raised alarm, then P.W.-4 Raju
Samad had arrived, that is also not a mere chance, rather, she
was acquainted with Raju Samad and under physical
relationship with him, prior to alleged occurrence.
(vi) The victim along with Raju Samad went to house of
her grandmother, although in the same village, her own
parental house was situated but she went to her own home, in
the next day morning.
(vii) P.W.-2 Javni Toppo happens to be own maternal aunt
(Mausi) of the victim, whose marriage engagement was
scheduled on the very next day of occurrence i.e. 04.12.2001.
There is clear cut evidence of her father (P.W.-9) that on the date
of occurrence, Javni Toppo did not go out from her house
2026:JHHC:5645-DB
because in the next day, her engagement was scheduled and her
in-laws family had to visit on his own house, therefore, the
whole story as projected by victim that she met with Javni
Toppo in the way who was also chased by accused persons
absolutely becomes falsified as per the evidence of her own
maternal grandfather (P.W.-9). The Seizure List prepared by I.O.
also appears to be manipulated within two days gap, prior to
lodging the F.I.R. The victim has deposed during trial that only
her undergarment was put off by the accused persons before
commission of rape and after commission of the offence, she put
on said underwear while returning to her own home but there is
a seizure list of red color underwear allegedly of the victim
which was never produced during trial and some pieces of
Bengals is also alleged to be seized. Although, the victim was a
class VI student and not a married woman who shall wear the
Bengals. Moreover, all these seized materials were never put on
TIP to establish that the same was belonging to the victim.
(viii) The victim has deposed that when she was being
chased by accused persons, she left her cycle and wearing
slippers but those articles were not seized from the place of
occurrence and no whisper was made in the entire evidence
whether the cycle was recovered or not. The entire evidence led
by the prosecution appears to be shrouded with doubt and
motivated with falsehood, whatsoever reason may be behind it,
2026:JHHC:5645-DB
but the same indicates that the victim was seen under
compromising position with her friend Raju Samad (P.W.-4)
which could be probably the reason for false implication of the
accused persons.
(ix) The medical examination report of the victim also does
not corroborate the commission of gang rape with her.
(x) It is settled position of law that in case of rape, no
independent witness can be searched out to corroborate the
prosecution story rather the testimony of victim, if appears to be
absolutely reliable, can form basis of conviction. It is also trite
that if the evidence of victim and other circumstances appears to
be tainted with falsehood and not reliable at all and the
testimony of the victim is of shaky nature and finds no
corroboration from any independent source, the benefit of
doubt must go to the accused persons.
In the premises of above contentions, learned counsel for the
appellants submits that impugned judgment and order is based
upon improper appreciation of evidence and giving undue
weightage to the evidence of victim which is not absolutely
reliable, as such, the same suffers from serious error of law and
liable to be set aside. Appellants deserve acquittal from the
charge levelled against them. These appeals have merits and fit
to be allowed.
2026:JHHC:5645-DB
Submissions on behalf of the State
9. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has
submitted that the learned trial Court has very wisely and aptly
appreciated and analyzed the evidence available on record and
rightly convicted the appellants. The impugned judgment of
conviction and sentence of the appellants does not suffer from
any illegality or infirmity, calling for any interference. There is
no legal substance in the grounds raised on behalf of the
appellants. It is a serious and heinous offence of gang rape
committed with a virgin victim girl. Therefore, the appellants do
not deserve any leniency in the matter of sentence rather they
have been adequately punished by the learned trial Court
awarding the imprisonment for 10 years. These appeals are
devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed.
10. We have gone through the record along with the impugned
judgment in the light of rival contentions of the parties.
11. The sole point for determination in this appeal is "as to whether
the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the
appellants suffers from any error of law, which requires any
interference in these appeals?"
Analysis, reasons and decision:
12. Before imparting our verdict upon the above point, we have to
take brief resume of the evidence of witnesses examined in this
case.
2026:JHHC:5645-DB
P.W.-1 is the informant-cum-victim girl. She has disclosed her
age to be 14 years on the date of occurrence. Reiterating the
version contained in the F.I.R., she has deposed that she is a
student of Class (VI) in Sant Monika Middle School,
Manoharpur and used to reside in a rented house at Gopipur,
Turi Tola. On 03.12.2001 (Monday), in the evening at about 4
pm, she proceeded from Gopipur Turi Tola by her cycle to go
to her home situated in Village Jharbera for bringing groceries.
When she reached at Trila Chowk, then, her co-villager girl
Javni Toppo aged about 18 years met her and she also boarded
on her cycle and proceeded further. When she reached near
Raikera where road was situated on Hillock, then both got
down from cycle and started walking towards their home with
cycle and reached near Getti Gegha of village Raikera towards
the Bandhu Nasa. In the meantime, appellants Mangilal
Mahto, Postman, Raikera, Udhisther Mahto, Anand Mahto and
Bhutku @ Nishikant Mahto stopped them and started chasing.
Then, she along with Javni Toppo started fleeing away but got
tired and fell down with her cycle. Javni Toppo managed to
flee away but she was caught hold of by the accused persons,
who gagged her mouth and brought towards Lokra Huri
Hillock, laid her down on earth and after putting off her
undergarments, all the accused persons committed rape on her
one by one. She became unconscious. when, she regained
2026:JHHC:5645-DB
consciousness, the accused persons had already fled away. She
raised alarm for help. Meanwhile, Raju Samad (P.W.-4) who is
also co-villager of accused persons came to rescue her and also
brought water from a pond and served her. Sometime, she
concealed herself along with Raju Samad in bushes due to fear
of accused persons. Thereafter, she along with Raju Samad
came to village Jharbera at the house of her maternal
grandmother (P.W.5) and Raju Samad (P.W.-4) went to his
home. She has further deposed that her maternal grandmother
told her that Javni Toppo along with her elder brother Banu
Toppo and younger brother of this witness John Paul Kachhap
have gone out of house in search of her. She also narrated the
incident to her maternal grandmother. In the next morning,
i.e., 04.12.2001, she went to her own house in village Jharbera
and narrated the incident to her parents. On that day,
engagement was scheduled of Javni Toppo and several
relatives had to come at her house, hence information was not
given to police and she lodged the report on 06.12.2001. She
has further deposed that she was acquainted with the accused
persons prior to occurrence. She has proved her whole
fardbeyan and signature over it as Exhibit 1 and 1/1,
respectively and also identified the accused persons present
behind the dock.
2026:JHHC:5645-DB
This witness has been cross-examined by the defence at
length wherein she admits that she was acquainted with Raju
Samad (P.W.-4) from one year back who used to come at her
native village Jharbera. She further admits that her school time
is 10:00 am to 04:00 PM but on Saturday school time is from
06:00 am to 11:00 am. On the date of occurrence i.e. 03.12.2001,
the school was closed at 4 PM, thereafter she went to her
rented quarter at Gopipur and after changing cloth proceeded
for her own village at about 5:00 pm. She further admits that
except accused persons, she does not know any other person
of village Raikera with name. She has further disclosed the
source of acquaintance of the accused persons saying that
they used to come at her village for picking firewood and
Mahua. She was not in talking term with the accused persons.
She further states that no one has disclosed the name of
accused persons to her. But villagers were calling the accused
persons by name, hence, she came to know their name but
again failed to disclose the name of person who was calling the
accused persons by name.
She further admits that while she along with Javni Toppo
(P.W.-2) were fleeing away, then accused Anand Mahto and
Mangilal Mahto caught hold of her and accused Nishikant
Mahto and Udhisthir Mahto caught hold of Javni Toppo. All
the accused persons along with victim girl were proceeded
2026:JHHC:5645-DB
towards same direction but Javni Toppo anyhow liberated
herself and fled away.
She further admits that when the accused persons were
taking her towards Likri Guri Pahari, her slipper was left out
and she was dragged about 60-70 yards on rocky way but she
got no injury on her leg. She also admits that prior to
occurrence, she was virgin and never got any physical
relationship with any male person. She regained consciousness
about half an hour of occurrence. She wore her underwear
after the incident. She has also disclosed that when she reached
at the house of her maternal grandmother in the night, she
disclosed the incident to her but it was informed by her Nani
that Javni Toppo, Banu Toppo (maternal uncle of this witness)
or P.W-7 had gone in search of her. She has denied the
suggestion of defence that she had illicit relationship with Raju
Samad (P.W.-4) which was seen by the accused persons.
Hence, she has lodged false case in connivance with Raju
Samad against the accused persons and giving false evidence.
P.W.-2, Javni Toppo is another important witness. According
to her evidence, on the date of occurrence, she was returning
from Manohaupur after doing her work. In the way, she met
with the informant and proceeded to village Jharbera, when
they reached near Bandhu Nasa village, then four boys of
Raikera village met them and started following them. Then,
2026:JHHC:5645-DB
she fled away and disclosed the above story to her brother
Banu Toppo (P.W.-8) and Pawan Toppo (Brother of Informant)
and along with them proceeded in search of the informant but
she could not meet in the night. She further states that in the
mid night, Raju Samad left the informant at village Jharbera in
the house of her maternal grandmother. Then, informant
disclosed about the commission of rape by four accused
persons. She has identified all the accused persons behind the
dock but failed to disclose their name.
In her cross-examination, she admits that she does labour
work and on the date of occurrence also, she was doing labour
work at Manoharpur and got leave about 6 PM, then
proceeded for her own village Jharbera walking on foot. She
also admits that from the place where she fled away due to
fear of accused persons, the cycle of the victim girl was
dropped there but when she again went in search of the victim,
she did not find her cycle. When she was fleeing away, she
also disclosed about the incident to nearby villagers and went
in search of informant but she could not be found. She also
admits that after the occurrence, she met with the informant in
the next day morning, when she was fetching water from well.
She further admits that accused persons were acquainted
with her prior to occurrence and occasionally she was talking
2026:JHHC:5645-DB
with them. She further states that informant is her cousin
sister.
She has denied the suggestion of defence that she has given
false evidence and had no knowledge about the occurrence.
P.W.-3, Dr. Deep Sikha Verma has medically examined the
victim girl on 07.12.2001 at about 11 AM and found following:
(i) Height- 5'1/2", weight -45 kg.
(ii) Secondary sex character well developed
Auxiliary and public hair - present
Mark of identification-mole of left cheek.
(iii) Dental Formula
2122 2122
2122 2122
(iv) Uterus- Anteverted, normal size mobile fornix clear.
Hymen ruptured. Veginal Orific admits two fingers.
(v) Veginal Swab- No spermatozoa, alive or dead found,
pus cell-nil. R.B.C.-Nil epithelial cell presents in fair
number, bacteria present.
(vi) X Ray-fusion of epiphysis lower end radius and ulna-
not complete.
Fusion of epiphysis of iliac crest not complete.
(2) Opinion (i) Victim in habit of habitual intercourse.
(ii) Age of victim-below 18 yrs.
2026:JHHC:5645-DB
(iii) No injury on genital or any part of body. This witness
has proved this medical report which is marked as
Ext.-2.
P.W.-4, Raju Samad is also prime witness of this case, who has
saved the victim and brought her at maternal grandmother's
house. According to his evidence, he is acquainted with victim
girl/informant who is resident of village Jharbera. He has
further deposed that his maternal uncle resides in village
Raikera. He also used to reside there. The informant used to
go to her school passing through village Raikera. He has
further deposed that on 03.12.2001 in the evening while he was
returning from village Bandhu Nasa and reached near Pokhar,
he heard alarm of a girl and rushed towards the place of sound
and when reached at the place of occurrence, he found the
informant was lying unconscious. No any other person was
present there. The girl was asking for water, then, he brought
some water from nearby pond and served her and also
sprinkled some water on her face. He has further deposed that
on request of victim girl he went to her maternal
grandmother's house at village Jharbera and returned back.
He has given a serious jolt to the prosecution story saying
that the victim did not disclose about the incident. On this
point, this witness has been declared hostile by the
prosecution and his attention has been drawn towards the
2026:JHHC:5645-DB
statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. where he has
disclosed the name of all the accused persons as disclosed by
the victim girl to him.
P.W.-5 Saundi Toppo is the maternal grandmother of
informant/victim girl. According to her evidence, Javni Toppo
(P.W.-2) is her daughter and informant of this case is her
granddaughter (Natini). She has deposed that on the date of
occurrence, her daughter Javni Toppo returned to home from
Manoharpur and told that in the way she along with informant
were stopped by some boys of Raikera village but her
daughter Javni Toppo managed to flee away and her Natini
was caught by accused persons. Her daughter Javni Toppo
(P.W.-2) had not disclosed the name of any of the miscreants
who intercepted in her way along with the informant. Later
on, informant was brought to home of this witness in the night
with a boy but at that time, she was in sound sleep, hence did
not ask anything about her Natini. She was also not
interrogated by the police in relation to any occurrence.
She has been declared hostile by the prosecution and her
attention has been drawn towards statement under Section 161
Cr. P.C. wherein she stated that when her daughter Javni
Toppo returned to home, she disclosed that Mangilal Mahto,
Anand Mahto, Udhisthir Mahto and Nishikant Mahto chased
her and the informant in the way but she anyhow managed to
2026:JHHC:5645-DB
flee away. She has also denied any statement before the police
that after receiving information from Javni Toppo, her son
Banu Toppo (P.W.-8) and grandson Jaun Paul Kachhap (P.W.-
7) along with Javni Toppo went in search of the informant. She
has also denied any statement that the victim girl has disclosed
about commission of rape by all the four accused persons, after
arrival to home in the night itself, she has clearly admitted that
she had no personal knowledge about the occurrence.
P.W.-6 Anjela Kachchap is the mother of informant.
According to her evidence also, in the next morning of the
occurrence, her daughter met with her and told that she along
with Javni Toppo were returning to home, then she was raped
by some boys of village Raikera. Her daughter is handicapped
by one hand and she could not escape away but the Javni
Toppo fled away from the place of occurrence. She also
admits that her daughter did not disclose the name of any
accused persons who had committed rape with her. This
witness has also been declared hostile by the prosecution to the
extent that the name of the accused persons was disclosed to
her by the informant which she is not disclosing.
P.W.-7, John Paul Kachhap is the tender year boy of 12 years
and brother of the informant. According to him, on the date of
occurrence, in the night, Javni Toppo was returning along with
victim girl, where four accused persons caught hold of her and
2026:JHHC:5645-DB
anyhow, she managed to flee away. In the night, the informant
came to house along with Raju Samad. He has stated nothing
about the commission of rape with the victim girl.
P.W.-8, Banu Toppo is the tender witness.
P.W.-9 Nandowa Kachchap is the father of informant.
According to his evidence, his daughter told him about the
occurrence on 04.12.2001 in the morning stating that in the
evening of 03.12.2001, some boys have misbehaved with her
while she was returning to home along with Javni Toppo. His
daughter has also disclosed the name of accused persons as
Anand Mahto, Nishikant Mahto, Udhisthir Mahto and one
other boy who was working in the post office. He could not
lodge the FIR because on 05.12.2001, engagement of Javni
Toppo was scheduled and relatives had to come.
In his cross-examination, he admits that Javni Toppo is his
saali i.e. sister of his wife. He further admits that in the late
night Javni Toppo did not disclose about the incident to him.
His mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law also did
not disclose about the incident in the night. He further admits
that on 03.12.2001, about 15-20 relatives had come to house
from Orissa in connection with engagement of Javni Toppo,
hence, on that day, Javni Toppo did not went for work
anywhere. He did not go in search of his daughter in the night
because he had no knowledge about the incident. He also
2026:JHHC:5645-DB
admits that at first the informant narrated about the incident to
her mother and nothing was told to him and he came to know
about the incident from his wife. He has denied the suggestion
of defence that he has given evidence due to enmity with the
accused persons.
P.W.-10 Hemant Kr. Lakara is a local villager who has proved
his signature as Exhibit 3 and 3/1 in respect of seizure of red
color underwear, hanky and pieces of Bengals, etc. from the
place of occurrence. In his cross-examination, he admits that
the seized materials bear no marks of identification.
P.W.-11, S.I. Srikant Singh is Investigating Officer of this
case. According to his evidence, on 06.12.2001, he was posted
as J.S.I., Manoharpur Police Station, on that day, informant
along with her father came to Police Station and her ferdbeyan
was written by the then Officer-in-charge Sr, Rajiv Ranjan. He
has proved the formal FIR as exhibit-4 and the signature of
Nandowa Kachhap on the fardbeyan as exhibit 1/2. Charge of
investigation was given to this witness on the same day. He
has recorded restatement of the informant and her father
Nandowa and mother Anjela Kacchap in the course of
investigation. He further interrogated with witnesses Jamini
Toppo, Banu Topp, Jaun Paul Kachhap and Raju Samad, etc.
He has further deposed that he visited the place of occurrence
which is situated towards southern side of Raikera to Jharbera
2026:JHHC:5645-DB
road. At Lokra Huri Hillock covered with forest and bushes
and rocky land. He has further deposed that adjacent to the
place of occurrence, from a bush, underwear, hanky and
pieces of Bengals of informant were recovered. The seizure
list of above materials was prepared by him in presence of
two independent witnesses which is marked as Exhibit -5. He
sent the victim for medical examination on 07.12.2001 and
obtained medical report. He has arrested only one accused
person namely Udhisthir Mahto and other accused persons
have surrendered before the Court. After finding sufficient
evidence, he submitted charge-sheet against the accused
persons.
In his cross-examination, this witness admits that he has not
mentioned in the case-diary as to who has identified the
place of occurrence and further recollects that place of
occurrence was identified to him by witness Raju Samad
(P.W.-4) and on the same day, he recorded statement of Raju
Samad. He further states that about the seized materials
mentioned in the seizure list the informant in her statement
had disclosed but she has not disclosed about color of above
materials. He has not conducted TIP of the seized materials
from the informant. The attention of this witness has been
drawn towards the statement of P.W.-2 Javni Toppo wherein
she has not stated before this witness that she has disclosed
2026:JHHC:5645-DB
about the incident to the informant's brother. He has denied
the suggestion that his investigation is defective and he has
submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons without
sufficient evidence.
13. We have given thoughtful consideration to the evidence of
prime witnesses examined in this case as well as the second
category witnesses who have come to know about the incident
from victim girl, in the light of other attending circumstances
brought on record by the medical officer as well as I.O. Upon
thorough scrutiny of the evidence of prime witnesses, it is
crystal clear that the informant proceeded from Gopipur to her
village Jharbera at about 5 pm as it was Monday and school
closed at about 4 pm. She also admits that from the place of
occurrence, she proceeded by cycle and it would take about one
and half hour to reach her home. Just After covering a distance
of about 30 minutes, she visited her friend Javni Toppo (P.W.-2)
who also accompanied her on the same cycle. The real story
starts thereafter as covering some more distance they got hilly
area in between the village Bandhu Nasa and Raikera. The
accused persons/appellants intercepted them, caught hold of
them and started pushing towards bushy area of rocky road.
P.W.-2, Javni Toppo managed to flee away but informant was
crushed by the accused persons by fulfilling their sexual lust
one by one due to which the informant became unconscious.
2026:JHHC:5645-DB
The story further turned around when informant regained
consciousness after half an hour of the occurrence and started
shouting for help. The hero in the shape of Raju Samad (P.W.-4)
appeared as godfather of the informant, who served her water
and also brought her at the home of maternal grandmother of
the victim at about 12 PM and went away to his own home.
14. It is admitted fact that the informant-cum-victim did not
disclose the above ghastly occurrence to her maternal
grandmother in the night when she arrived at the home. It is
also very surprising that P.W.-2, Javni Toppo who fled away
from the place of occurrence escaping herself and returned to
home did not talk about the incident to her mother or any other
family members and even to the parents of the informant. It is
admitted position that P.W.-2 is none else but Mausi of the
informant and sister of her own mother. P.W.-9, father of the
informant has also stated that Javni Toppo is sister of his wife
(Saali in relation).
15. It is stated by P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 that the accused
persons/appellants met them in between 6:00-6:30 pm and from
the place of occurrence, they can reach to their home within 15
minutes. It is also admitted that from the house of P.W.-2, the
house of the parents of the victim is very close and may be
covered within 10 minutes. Therefore, if P.W.-2 was present at
the time of occurrence and she managed to escape and returned
2026:JHHC:5645-DB
to home in between 7:00-7:30 PM in spite of knowledge of such
a serious offence being committed by the accused persons with
a tender year girl, she kept herself mum and disclosed to no one
including her mother and parents of the informant does not
stand to reason. Further presence of P.W.2 at the spot is also
doubted from her own testimony wherein she admits that she is
working as a labour and on the date of occurrence, she worked
till 6 PM, thereafter proceeded to her home through same way
which was adopted by P.W.-1. She also admits that she was
going on foot and walked about 30 minutes then P.W.-2 met
with her at Trila Chowk.
16. As against it, P.W.-1 proceeded from Gopipur by cycle at about
5 PM, then it is impossible to meet at the place as disclosed by
P.W.-2 Javni Toppo when she was going by foot.
17. The other point showing non-presence of P.W.-2 appears from
the evidence of P.W.-9 who is father of P.W.-1 and brother-in-
law of P.W.-2 that on 03.12.2001, the marriage engagement
ceremony of P.W.-2 was scheduled and several relatives from
the Orissa had come. Therefore, P.W.-2 did not go anywhere on
that day. The conduct of P.W.-2 in the light of evidence of her
close relatives cast a serious cloud about her presence at the
place of occurrence.
18. So far, the manner of identification of the accused persons is
concerned, the victim has disclosed a very strange story.
2026:JHHC:5645-DB
Initially, she admits that she was acquainted with the accused
persons from one year prior to the occurrence because they used
to come at her village for picking firewood and Mahuwa but no
one disclosed their name to her. She improves and says that
some villagers were calling them by name and again failed to
disclose the name of any villagers who were calling the accused
persons by name. P.W.-2 has also given a similar story
regarding acquaintance with the accused persons prior to the
occurrence. The parents of the informant have clearly admitted
that the name of the accused persons were not disclosed to
them. Similarly, P.W.-5, the grandmother of the informant also
expressed that the name of accused persons was not disclosed to
her either by P.W.-1 or P.W.-2. The brother of informant has
been tendered having no knowledge of occurrence. Then, a
common question arises here as to who was instrumental in
disclosing the name of accused persons to the victim girl.
Admittedly, she has developed intimacy and friendship with
P.W.-4 Raju Samad prior to one year. It is not just a chance that
at the time of occurrence when P.W.-1 became unconscious and
after regaining conscious started shouting for help, Raju Samad
as a Hero approached there and none else. This story speaks
some other things.
19. Similarly, place of occurrence was not identified by the
informant as admitted by the I.O.( P.W.-11), rather, it was the
2026:JHHC:5645-DB
Raju Samad (P.W.-4) who identified the place of occurrence as
well as seized materials were searched from the bushes. Here, at
this juncture, the seized materials like red color underwear,
pieces of Bengals, Hanky were not put for identification by the
informant. Moreover, such type of recovery is itself doubtful
when the informant herself admits that after commission of rape
with her, she wore underwear and went to her house. Then,
there was no question of recovery of any underwear of the
victim.
20. In view of the above glaring suspicious circumstances, no
credence can be attached to the testimony of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and
P.W.-4. It has also surfaced that P.W.-4 Raju Samad has been
turned hostile. He also admits that the victim has not narrated
to him about the commission of rape with her nor the name of
any miscreants. In spite of this fact, attention of I.O. has not been
drawn towards above contradiction/omission appearing in the
evidence of P.W.-4 by the prosecution.
21. The story of commission of gang rape with the victim also
stands falsified by medical report of the victim wherein no mark
of injury was found on her body either external or internal. No
sign of recent rape was also found and the victim was opined to
be habitual of sexual intercourse. As against it, the victim in her
evidence has stated that it was her first experience of sexual
intercourse, when the incident took place.
2026:JHHC:5645-DB
In the above suspicious circumstances, delay in lodging the
F.I.R. becomes fatal to prosecution case, casting serious doubt
against the occurrence as projected by witnesses.
22. Although, it is settled principle of law that there is no legal
impediment in basing the conviction of the accused for the
offence under Section 376 of the IPC solely on the basis of
testimony of the victim without further corroboration from any
independent source. But the condition is that the victim must be
wholly reliable and her evidence must not suffer from any
malice, falsehood or concoction.
23. In the instant case, we have noticed as discussed above, several
circumstances appearing in the evidence of witnesses clearly
indicating that not only the prime witnesses P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and
P.W.-4 are making absolutely false story, contradictory to each
other and further falsified by the evidence of close relatives who
have been examined in this case as P.W.-5, P.W.-6, P.W.-7, P.W.8
and P.W.-9. Therefore, false implication of the accused
persons/appellants for whatsoever reasons cannot be overruled.
24. In our considered view, the learned trial Court has failed to
scrutinize the evidence of witnesses comparing the probative
value of their testimony. The cumulative effect of the evidence
of primary witnesses P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-4 and other
circumstances brought on record by the close relative witnesses
namely P.W.-5, P.W.-6, P.W.-7, P.W.8 and P.W.-9 as well as
2026:JHHC:5645-DB
delay of three days in lodging the F.I.R. in this case leads
towards conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to
prove the chain of events against the appellants beyond all
reasonable doubt, rather, the whole prosecution story as
projected by witnesses cannot be believed to be true and
convincing. Therefore, conviction of the appellants suffers from
serious error of law and beyond the weight of evidence on
record.
25. Therefore, we are constrained to set aside the impugned
judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the
appellants.
26. Accordingly, these Appeals are allowed and appellants are
acquitted from the charges leveled against them.
27. The appellants are on bail; hence, they are discharged from their
liabilities of bail bonds. The sureties are also discharged.
28. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly.
29. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be
sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi
Date: 26/02/2026
Basant/-N.A.F.R.
Uploaded on 27/02/2026
