Allowed

Manoj Raut v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC3 Jan 2019Cr.A(SJ)/841/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal appeal against a conviction for outraging modesty (IPC Sec. 354). The bench set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, holding that the sole eyewitness's testimony was unsupported and inconsistent with the written statement, granting benefit of doubt.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment and sentence were set aside; the appellant was acquitted of the charge and discharged from bail liability.

Manoj Raut Vs State of Jharkhand — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 841 of 2004

¶4

....

¶5

(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 21.04.2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge IX, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No. 431 of 2003).

¶6

Manoj Raut, son of Bujhawan Raut, resident of ChanchPottery, P.S. Chirkunda (Panchet), District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand).

¶7

… .. Appellant

¶8

Versus The State of Jharkhand … . Respondent

¶9

¶10

PRESENT

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO

¶12

For the Appellant : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Deomani, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶13

¶14

By Court:- The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 21.04.2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge IX, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No. 431 of 2003, whereby the sole appellant who has been charged under Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code, has been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code but acquitted the appellant from the charge under Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

¶15

2. The prosecution case is based upon the written report submitted by Raj Kumar Gupta (P.W. 2) before Officer-in-Charge, Chirkunda (Panchet) Police Station on 04.09.2003 alleging therein that he was at his shop along with his wife Sushma Devi (P.W. 3) and his daughter Rajni Kumari (P.W. 1), aged about 12 years was at her house. It is stated that at about 4.00 P.M. when wife of the informant returned to his house, she saw Rajni Kumari was crying. On query, Rajni Kumari has disclosed to her mother that at around 3.00 P.M., neighbourer namely Manoj Raut, son of Bujhawan Raut came to the house of Rajani Kumari and informed that her mother

¶16

¶17

has demanded tiffin. When the daughter of the informant went inside the house, Manoj Raut also entered into the house and locked the door from inside, thrashed her on the ground and was trying to commit rape upon her. On brawl raised by Rajni Kumari, neighbours have assembled there and thereafter, the accused fled away. After getting knowledge of the occurrence, wife of the informant has informed the informant and thus, informant came to his house and got knowledge about the occurrence from Rajni Kumari and his neighbours also. The informant has further stated that he has informed his elder brother and members of the family about the occurrence and thereafter, with the help of villagers and family members Manoj Raut was searched who was found beside the school in the jungle and has also sustained some injuries while apprehended by the informant and co-villagers.

¶18

On the basis of written report of the informant, police has instituted Chirkunda (Panchet) P.S. Case No. 148 of 2003 dated 05.09.2003, under Section 376/ 511 of the Indian Penal Code against the sole appellant Manoj Raut. 4. After investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no. 178 of 2003, dated 30.09.2003, under Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code against the sole accused Manoj Raut. 5. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 23.10.2003 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 20.11.2003.

¶19

The charge has been framed against the accused Manoj Raut under Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 22.12.2003, to which the accused has pleaded his innocence and thus, he was put under trial.

¶20

The prosecution, to prove its case, has examined altogether seven witnesses and also exhibited a number of documentary evidence. Rajni Kumari, victim of the case, has been examined as P.W. 1, Raj Kumar Gupta, father of the victim and informant of the case, has been examined as P.W. 2, Sushma Devi, mother of the informant, has been examined as P.W. 3, Nand Kumar Gupta, a hearsay witness has

¶21

¶22

been examined as P.W. 4, Hari Krisna Prasad, another hearsay witness has been examined as P.W. 5, Sanjay Kumar Gupta, other hearsay witness has been examined as P.W. 6 and Subodh Kumar Jaiswal, Officer-in-Charge of Chirkunda (Panchet) Police Station, has been examined as P.W. 7.

¶23

Written report has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 1, signature of the informant on the written report has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 1/1, signature of the Investigating Officer on the forwarding of the F.I.R. has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 1/2, signature of the Officer-in-Charge of Chirkunda Police Station on the formal First Information Report has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 2.

¶24

After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 15.04.2004, to which accused has pleaded that he has been falsely implicated in this case but no defence witness has been examined or document has been adduced by the defence.

¶25

After hearing the parties and on perusal of records, the learned Trial Court has passed, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, holding the appellant guilty under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶26

Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant has preferred the present criminal appeal, assailing the same.

¶27

Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Deomani, Advocate. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the victim has been examined as P.W. 1. She has taken somersault from her prosecution case in the written report submitted by the father of the victim Raj Kumar Gupta (P.W. 2). It is alleged that accused Manoj Raut entered into the house of Rajni Kumari (P.W. 1) on the pretext of demand of tiffin box by the mother of Rajni Kumari but while

¶28

¶29

deposing in the court, she has changed her statement that accused has entered into her house for demanding thali. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that Rajni Kumari (P.W. 1) has categorically stated in paragraph- 4 of her cross-examination that Manoj Raut is her neighbour and he came to her house and said that a guest has come to his house, as such, he has came for demanding thali. In paragraph- 5 of her cross-examination, this witness (Rajni Kumari) has stated that accused has not done any wrong with her. She has further stated in paragraph- 6 of her cross-examination that police has only recorded her name. In paragraph- 7 of her cross-examination, this witness has categorically stated that she has compromised the case and do not want to proceed with the case and in paragraph- 8 of her crossexamination, this witness has stated that the accused has not misbehaved with her.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that Raj Kumar Gupta, father of the victim has been examined as P.W. 2. This witness has proved the written report and his signature on the written report, which have been marked as Exhibits- 1 and 1/1 respectively. This witness has stated that he has not seen the occurrence and he has also compromised the case and now he does not want to proceed with the case. Sushma Devi, mother of the victim has been examined as P.W. 3. This witness has stated that appellant Manoj Raut is her neighbour and they have compromised the case. She has further stated that she has not seen the occurrence rather the same has been disclosed to her by the victim. Nand Kumar Gupta is a hearsay witness and has been examined as P.W. 4, Hari Krishna Prasad, another hearsay witness has been examined as P.W. 5 and Sanjay Kumar Gupta, other hearsay witness has been examined as P.W. 6. Subodh Kumar Jaiswal, Sub-Inspector of Police, has been examined as P.W. 7. This witness has proved the forwarding and formal First Information Report, which have been marked as Exhibits- 1/2 and 2 respectively. This witness has further stated that Rajni Kumari (P.W. 1) has supported her allegation made in the First Information as Manoj Raut has entered into her house on the pretext of demanding tiffin and when

¶31

¶32

she went inside the kitchen to bring the tiffin, appellant also went inside the kitchen after locking the main door and caught hold of her with intention to outrage her modesty, on brawl raised by the victim, the accused fled away as the neighbours have started assembling there. The victim was not examined by any doctor. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that after considering the evidence of the victim, who is the sole witness to the occurrence, as she has not supported the prosecution case with regard to manner of occurrence. Learned counsel for the appellant has thus submitted that the appellant deserves to be acquitted from the charge under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶33

Heard, learned counsel for the State, Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Additional Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the State has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is well founded and is based on the materials available on record. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the Investigating Officer has found the case to be true during investigation and thereafter submitted chargesheet under Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, as such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence does not warrant any interference by this Hon'ble Court.

¶34

Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Deomani, Advocate and learned counsel for the State, Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the evidence brought on record including the F.I.R., framing of charge, evidence of seven prosecution witnesses, two prosecution exhibits, statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. This Court has minutely scrutinised the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. From perusal of the evidence, it appears that except the victim Rajni Kumari (P.W. 1), none of the prosecution witnesses have claimed themselves to be an eye-witness to the occurrence. Rajni Kumari,

¶35

¶36

victim has not supported her case during her examination in the court as P.W. 1, Raj Kumar Gupta (P.W. 2) (father of the victim) and Sushma Devi (mother of the victim) (P.W. 3) are hearsay witnesses. Nand Kumar Gupta (P.W. 4), Hari Krishna Prasad (P.W. 5) and Sanjay Kumar Gupta (P.W. 6) are also hearsay witnesses. Subodh Kumar Jaiswal (P.W. 7) is the Investigating Officer, who has submitted chargesheet on the basis of the statment made by the informant but the informant Raj Kumar Gupta (P.W. 2) and the victim Rajni Kumari (P.W. 2) have not supported the prosecution case, as such, the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt.

¶37

In the result, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 21.04.2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge IX, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No. 431 of 2003, arising out of Chirkunda (Panchet) P.S. Case No. 148 of 2003, corresponding to G. R. No. 2763 of 2003, is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted from the conviction under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code by extending benefit of doubt.

¶38

The appellant, who is on bail, is discharged from liability of his bail bond.

¶39

Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is allowed.

¶40

Let the lower court record be sent along with a copy of this judgment to the court concerned, at once for necessary action.

¶41

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)

¶42

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 03.01.2019

¶43

Pallavi/

Manoj Raut v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Raut v. State of Jharkhand

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

Lal Muni Bhuiya Vs State of Jharkhand

Kalicharan Modi And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Lambodar Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand

Sohan Baski Vs State of Jharkhand

Ramu Marandi Vs State of Jharkhand

Palton Soren Vs State of Jharkhand