Victim appealed against acquittal of the accused on a rape charge under Section 376 IPC. The court found serious enmity between the parties, absence of medical evidence and inconsistencies in testimony. Relying on Mallappa, it held the trial court's view plausible and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acquittal Appeal (D.B.) No.14 of 2021
Usha Devi, W/o Jageshwar Ram Rajak, R/o Village Mahuri, P.O. & P.S. Bagodar, District- Giridih
… Appellant(s).
Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Santosh Rajak, S/o Munshi Rajak … Respondent(s).
…… CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
-----For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Binod Kumar Jha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, A.P.P. For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Choubla, Advocate …......
06 /07.08.2024: Admit.
-1-
has been falsely implicated in this case, which has been held by the Trial Court after appreciation of evidence. It is their contention that there was severe enmity between the parties, which is apparent from the evidence itself. Further, neither the Doctor nor the Investigating Officer had been examined in this case, which gives a death blow to the prosecution case. Due to non-examination of the I.O., the defence has been prejudiced, as because the actual fact including the animosity between the parties which supports the defence case has been prejudiced.
P.W.-1 is the daughter of the complainant, who stated that she heard a scream from the back of her house and when she rushed to the place where her mother went to ease herself, she saw the accused fleeing. On query, her mother stated that accused has raped her on the point of knife. She further stated that she was being threatened by him to not to give any statement in Court. She admits that this accused is her cousin. She stated that none of the neighbour reached the place of occurrence after the alarm was raised by her mother. She stated that she also did not raise any alarm. She further admits that
-2-
there was dispute going on between her family and family of the accused.
P.W.-2 is the victim herself, she stated that she had gone to ease herself where the accused was waiting. He caught hold of her and gagged her with towel, as a result of which she could not scream. Thereafter, accused slammed her on the ground and committed rape upon her and fled. She stated thereafter, she returned her house crying and narrated the story to all, including her mother-in-law, father-in-law and daughter, and thereafter went to the police station, but no action was taken and after two months, the F.I.R. was lodged. As the F.I.R. was not lodged during that period, she filed the complaint. She stated that her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was also recorded. She admitted that the accused is the son of her elder brother-in-law and there is land dispute going on between them. She further stated that earlier in respect of land dispute, she had lodged a case and levelled allegation against this accused that he has torn her blouse. She also admitted that in 2014, she had lodged a case against the B.D.O., Bagodar, Giridih under Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. She also admits that she has a PDS shop and the accused is the Mukhiya of that area. She denied the suggestion that as she used to commit irregularity and illegality in Public Distribution System, which was opposed by the accused thus false case has been lodged. She denied the suggestion that on the complain of the accused her licence of Public Distribution Shop has been suspended. She admits that Manju Devi is aunty of the accused and Manju Devi had filed a case under Section 376 of IPC against her husband. She also admits that there is a case against her under the Essential Commodities Act, which was lodged by Block Supply Officer, Giridih and she admits that she has filed a
-3-
case under Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the said Officer also. She also admits that this accused has filed a criminal case against her husband, which is still pending. She further admits that after fight on 23.06.2015 at about 03.30 P.M. she also got injured, but the police did not get her medically treated, rather she herself had gone to private hospital and got herself treated by a Doctor whose name is Ramu Patel and the prescription was also given, but the same is not with her now.
P.W.-3 is Jageshwar Ram Rajak, who stated that he was not present in his house on the date of occurrence and when he returned on the next day, his wife i.e the victim told him that Santosh Rajak had committed rape upon her, by gaging her mouth with towel. He admits that the accused is his nephew and he states that there is no land dispute amongst them, but there is a criminal case, which is still pending. He admits that there was a case under the Essential Commodities Act against his wife. He admits that 3 to 4 criminal cases are pending against him. He also admits that one Manju Devi had filed a criminal case alleging rape by him upon her. There are case and counter case between the parties. He admits that one Dr. Ramu Patel had treated her wife.
P.W.-4 is the Judicial Magistrate, who recorded the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He stated that the statement was voluntary and was in respect of commission of rape upon her. The statement was read over and explained to her and thereafter she had signed.
D.W.-1 is Ramu Prasad Patel @ Ramu Patel, he stated that he is not a Doctor neither he treats anyone. He is only serving in
-4-
a medical shop. He only read the prescription and provides the medicine as per prescription. He works under Dr. S.N. Lal at the Nursing Home. He admits that the accused had filed a criminal case against him and he also filed a criminal case against the accused.
D.W.-2 is Rambilash Paswan, who in evidence had verified the fact that there was dispute between the appellant and the accused and the appellant had also filed cases against the Government Officials.
D.W.-3 is Ramesh Paswan, who also stated that there are several cases filed by this appellant against Government Officials and others. He also stated that there was serious land dispute between the parties. He also stated that this appellant is involved in black-marketing of food grains and she had filed several cases against the villagers.
D.W.-4 is Sunita Devi, who also stated in the similar line.
-5-
had given the name of one person to be the Doctor but when the said person namely, Ramu Prasad Patel was examined as D.W.1, he clearly stated that he is not a Doctor, rather he is an employee in the medical shop.
-6-
was gagged with the towel and thereafter she was raped. But the said towel was also not produced. P.W.-1 stated that her mother told her that under the threat, by brandishing a knife, the rape was committed, but surprisingly P.W.-2 i.e. the victim had never whispered about the fact that the accused with the knife, had threatened her. Further in this case the Investigating Officer and the doctor was also not examined. There is no medical evidence of rape. All these facts create doubt about in the mind of this Court about the version of P.W.-1 as to whether actually she had gone there at the place of occurrence and was raped.
“26. No doubt, an order of acquittal is open to appeal and there is no quarrel about that. It is also beyond doubt that in the exercise of appellate powers, there is no inhibition on the High Court to reappreciate or re-visit the evidence on record. However, the power of the High Court to reappreciate the evidence is a qualified power, especially when the order under challenge is of acquittal. The first and foremost question to be asked is whether the trial court thoroughly appreciated the evidence on record and gave due consideration to all material pieces of evidence. The second point for consideration is whether the finding of the trial court is illegal or affected by an error of law or fact. If not, the third consideration is whether the view taken by the trial court is a fairly possible view. A decision of acquittal is not meant to be reversed on a mere difference of opinion. What is required is an illegality or perversity.
27. It may be noted that the possibility of two views in a criminal case is not an extraordinary phenomenon. The “two-views theory” has been judicially recognised by the courts and it comes into play when the appreciation of evidence results into two equally plausible
-7-
views. However, the controversy is to be resolved in favour of the accused. For, the very existence of an equally plausible view in favour of innocence of the accused is in itself a reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution. Moreover, it reinforces the presumption of innocence. And therefore, when two views are possible, following the one in favour of innocence of the accused is the safest course of action. Furthermore, it is also settled that if the view of the trial court, in a case of acquittal, is a plausible view, it is not open for the High Court to convict the accused by reappreciating the evidence. If such a course is permissible, it would make it practically impossible to settle the rights and liabilities in the eye of the law.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
(GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
R.S. A.F.R
-8-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the acquittal of the accused under Section 376 IPC was perverse and liable to interference in an appeal against acquittal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mallappa v. State of KarnatakaRelied on¶15
(2024) 3 SCC 544 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Usha Devi
The State of Jharkhand
Santosh Rajak
Ananda Sen
Gautam Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
