Dismissed

State of Jharkhand v. Jai Kant Yadav

Jharkhand HC11 Aug 2016Acq. App./27/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal challenging the acquittal of the accused for rape under Section 376 IPC, the High Court re-appreciated evidence and found serious discrepancies in prosecution testimony. The upper court upheld the trial court's view that the accuser's evidence was unreliable and devoid of evidence of violence, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The acquittal appeal was dismissed, affirming the acquittal of the accused.

State of Jharkhand Vs Jai Kant Yadav — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

Acquittal Appeal No. 27 of 2003

¶3

[Against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 19.02.2003 passed by Sri Abhay Shankar Mishra, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 244 of 1997 arising out of Jarmundi (Taljhari) P.S. Case No. 68 of 1997]

¶4

-------

¶5

The State of Jharkhand …. Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Jai Kant Yadav, S/o Bhuneshwar Yadav, Resident of Kapar Jora, PS Tala Mandi, Dist. Dumka …. Respondent

¶8

-------

¶9

For the Appellant : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, A.P.P. For the Respondent : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

¶11

------

¶12

08/Dated: 11th August, 2016 Per Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

¶13

In Sessions Case No. 244 of 1997, the respondent-accused faced trial for charges framed under Section 376/511 I.P.C, which ended in his acquittal. Aggrieved thereof, the State is in appeal filed under Section 378 (1) and (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶14

2. The prosecution case as narrated by the victim in her fardbeyan is that, on 12.06.1997 at about 4 p.m. when she was cutting firewood, the accused namely, Jai Kant Yadav took her to the nearby ditch and tried to commit rape upon her. When she raised alarm her husband and cousin came there and intervened. In the meantime, several villagers also assembled there and tried to apprehend the accused and in this process the accused fled away leaving his wrist-watch and cycle at the place of occurrence. P.W. 1 namely, Rawan Rai, the husband of the victim and P.W. 2 namely, Sitabi Rai, cousin of the victim were examined by the prosecution as eye witnesses, however, on the point of attempt to commit rape, injuries on the accused as well as the victim and presence of villagers after the victim raised alarm, their evidences have been found inconsistence and contradictory. The trial Court found serious discrepancy in the manner of occurrence as described by the victim -P.W.6

¶15

¶16

from her fardbeyan recorded by the police. At the place of occurrence no sign of violence was found. Neither the wrist-watch nor the cycle, which were left by the accused and picked up by P.W.1 and P.W. 2, were produced in the Court. The seizure list witness namely, Jiyadhar Rai-P.W. 9 stated in the Court that the police had taken his signature on the blank papers and P.W. 8 has denied signature on the seizure memo. The defence of the accused is that the witnesses assaulted him and snatched his wrist-watch, cycle and cash and in this connection Jarmundi P. S. Case No. 67 of 1997 was lodged in which police has submitted charge-sheet against those persons. In the present case, on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Jarmundi (Taljhari) P.S. Case No. 68 of 1997 was registered.

¶17

3. We have carefully re-appreciated the entire evidence and find that the view taken by the trial Court does not suffer from any serious infirmity in law. The trial Court has properly appreciated the prosecution evidence. There is no compelling reason for taking a view different from the view taken by the trial Court, acquitting the sole accused from the charges framed against him.

¶18

4. Considering the aforesaid facts, the instant acquittal appeal, being devoid of merits, is dismissed .

¶19

(Virender Singh, C.J.)

¶20

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

¶21

J harkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 11/08/2016 Amit/

State of Jharkhand v. Jai Kant Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Jharkhand v. Jai Kant Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Jharkhand Vs Manik Chand Ravidas

M/S Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited Vs Their Workmen

The Principal Secretary to the Honble Chancellor Governors Secretariat Vs State of Jharkhand Thr the Secretary Pr Secretary Deptt of Agriculture And Sugarcane Development a

Smt.Laxmi Murmu And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

State of Jharkhand Vs Vijay Oraon

State of Bihar Now Jharkhand Vs Durgawati Devi