The High Court dismissed the criminal appeal challenging conviction for rape under Section 376(2)(i) IPC. Relying on ocular testimony, medical evidence of sexual assault, and the victim's statement, the Court held that the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the trial court's findings were sound.
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 Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 232 of 2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 20.01.2014 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 23.01.2014 PASSED BY LEARNED ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER -III-CUM-FTC(CAW), RANCHI, IN SESSIONS TRIAL NO.707 OF 2013.
Ramu Sanga @ Kariyappa @ Samu Sanga, son of Kajnu Munda, resident of Village- Friends Colony, Lower Bardwan Compound, P.S. Lalpur Bazar, DistrictRanchi, Jharkhand. .........APPELLANT(S)
.........APPELLANT(S)
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ….……RESPONDENT …… For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Aman Shekhar, Advocate. For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P.
P R E S E N T
SRI ANANDA SEN, J. SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
J U D G M E N T
C.A.V. On: 08.08.2024 Pronounced On: 21/08/2024.
Ananda Sen, J: This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 20.01.2014 and order of sentence dated 23.01.2024 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-III-cum-FTC (CAW), Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No.707 of 2013, whereby, the appellant has been convicted under Sections 376(2) (i) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.2000/-.
Page/1
the circumstances, which surfaced during the evidence were not put to the appellant while recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., thus the conviction of this appellant is bad, which needs to be set aside.
On the basis of his written report, Lalpur P.S. Case No. 104 of 2013 was registered under Section 376/511 of IPC.
Page/2
P.W.-1 Basanti Kachhap , is the mother of the victim girl, who deposed that the occurrence took place on 25.4.2013 when her daughter, aged about 3 ½ years, returned to her house from school with her father and after taking meal she went outside along with other children for playing. When her daughter did not return till 5:30 p.m., this witness went outside to search her and found that all the children were playing. She enquired from them and they disclosed that Kariyappa (accused) has taken away her youngest daughter and she found that his house was locked from outside. She thereafter informed the matter to her neighbour that Kariyappa has taken away her youngest daughter, then people of the locality started searching along with her. In the meantime, she heard cry of her daughter from the house of the appellant. After breaking the lock, the people of the locality entered the house and saw that her daughter was weeping and she was undressed. In the meantime, the police reached there and on enquiry, the victim girl disclosed that this appellant committed rape on her. She has further deposed that she saw blood was oozing from her private part. In cross-examination, she remained firm throughout on the point of occurrence.
P.W.-2, Shrawan Kumar Mahto , is an independent witness. He deposed that he knew about the occurrence, which took place on 25.4.2013. Samu Sanga was assaulted by the villagers because he raped the victim. In the meantime, the police came and recovered the chappal (Slipper) and undergarment of blue colour of the victim from the house of Samu Sanga and seizure list was prepared. He identified his signature in the seizure list, which has been marked as Ext.-1.
P.W.-3, Kelbensia Tirkey , deposed that the occurrence took place on 25.4.2013. She deposed that she saw that the accused was alluring a girl aged about four years. Thereafter, he took her to a nearby shop and purchased one kurkure and gave it to the said girl and took her towards his house. She also deposed that on the same day at 9:00 p.m., she came to know that accusedKariyappa has committed rape upon the victim. In cross-examination, she remained firm on her statement.
P.W.-4, Chandan Lohra , deposed that the occurrence took place on 25.4.2013 when he had gone towards chowk and when he was returning, he heard some hue and cry. He went near the place where he came to know that
Page/3
Kariyappa had committed rape upon his niece. He saw that people of the locality were assaulting the accused. In the meantime, the police came and caught the accused- Kariyappa. He also deposed that the police recovered the undergarments and sandal of the victim. He has identified his signature on the seizure list, which has been marked as Ext.-1/A. From his cross-examination, nothing important could be extracted.
P.W.-5, Ramu Munda , is an independent witness, rather he is brother of the appellant. He deposed that the occurrence took place on 25.4.2013. He came to his house at 5:30 p.m, thereafter he went to his friends' colony, where he came to know that the youngest daughter of Munna Kachhap was missing and she was taken by his brother i.e. this appellant. He further deposed that the victim was searched everywhere but she was not found and lastly they went to the house of Samu Sanga where they found the the house locked from outside. They heard the victim crying inside the house. After breaking the lock, they entered the house and recovered the victim girl along with the accused. The people of the locality assaulted the accused. He deposed that the accused has tried to rape the victim. He saw that the victim's undergarments, her sandal and a packet of kurkure were lying there. At that time, the police came and seized the undergarments, kurkure and sandle of the victims. This witness has also been cross-examined, but the defence could not demolish his statement.
P.W.-6, Manoj Kumar Pattar , deposed that the occurrence took place on 25.4.2013. He deposed that when he knew that the victim was missing, he went in search of her along with P.W. 7- Karan Oraon. They went towards the house of Kariyappa and saw the house was locked from outside. When they called the name of victim, the victim replied from inside the house. Hearing her voice they broke the lock of the house and entered the house and recovered the victim along with the accused- Kariyappa. The people of the locality came and assaulted the accused. He also remained firm on his statement in crossexamination.
P.W.-7, Karan Oraon , has deposed that the occurrence took place on 25.4.2013 at 6-7 p.m when he was walking outside his house, he received a call from his sister who is mother of the victim that victim is traceless. Thereafter, he came to know from children that one Kariyappa has taken the victim on his lap then they went to the house of Kariyappa and he found his
Page/4
house locked and when he called the name of victim, then the victim replied him saying “ Mama” . Thereafter after breaking the lock, they entered into the house of the accused and heard the cry of victim. When he took her in his lap, he saw that she was bleeding. Thereafter the people of the locality assaulted the accused. In the meantime, police came and thereafter they went to police station, where a report of occurrence was lodged. The victim was sent to Sadar Hospital for treatment where she stayed for the whole night. In crossexamination, the defence has not been able to demolish his statement.
P.W.-8, Munna Kachhap , is the informant of this case as well as the father of the victim girl. He deposed that on 25.4.2013, he received a call from his house that his youngest daughter is missing. Thereafter taking leave from the employer, he rushed to his house and on the way he also received a call that his youngest daughter was found in the house of Kariyappa thus he directly went there. He saw that there was gathering of people and his wife has taken his youngest daughter in her lap. On enquiry, he came to know that his youngest daughter was taken away by Kariyappa towards his house. The people of the locality went there where they found the house of Kariyappa was locked from outside. After sometime they heard the cry of victim. After breaking the lock, they entered the house and recovered the victim. On enquiry, the victim disclosed to her mother that the accused had pressed her neck and after removing her panty, he committed rape on her. Thereafter, he rushed to the police station along with the people of the locality and lodged this case. He has identified the written report, which has been marked as Ext.-2 (with objection). The police had taken his re-statement. Thereafter the police visited the place of occurrence and recovered the undergarment and sandal of the victim from the house of the accused. In cross-examination, he stated that whatever he knows about the occurrence, was learnt by him from his wife and villagers.
P.W.-9, Ganesh Oraon , deposed that on 25.4.2013 in the evening he had gone to Burdman compound to his Sasural where he came to know that all the family members had gone to the village, as the accused Kariyappa has committed rape on her youngest sister then he also went there, where he saw that police came and took the accused to the police station. He further deposed that he also went to the police station. He has identified his writing and signature in written report which has been marked as Ext.-2.
Page/5
P.W.-10 is the victim, aged about 5 years. After satisfaction about the understanding of the victim, the Court recorded her deposition. She has stated before the Court that while she was playing in the field, the accused took her to shop and gave one kurkure and thereafter he took her to his house. She further deposed that the accused removed her panty and committed rape on her and while she was crying the accused started to press her neck. She also deposed that the people of the locality came there and entered the house and recovered her and thereafter her mother had taken her to the hospital.
P.W.-11, Sri Honhaga , is the Investigating Officer of this case. He deposed that on 25.4.2013 he was posted at Lalpur Police Station and on that very day the informant Munna Kachhap has lodged a written report and after institution of the case he was handed over the charge of investigation. Thereafter, he recorded the re-statement of the informant, in which, he corroborated the contents of the FIR. Thereafter, he proceeded to the place of occurrence. He also recorded the statement of the witnesses and sent the victim to Hospital for medical examination. He also sent the accused to RIMS for his treatment. He recovered one panty and a pair of sandal during inspection of the house of the accused and accordingly he prepared a seizure list in presence of independent witnesses. He has identified the seizure list, which has been marked as Ext.1/B. He has also brought the material exhibit, which was opened by the order of the Court. He also seized the cloth of the accused and sealed the same. He brought the said cloth in sealed condition which was opened by the order of the Court. The trouser of accused was stained with blood. He identified the said trouser which has been marked as Material Exhibit-3. He arrested the accused from RIMS. He also exhibited the formal FIR.
P.W.-12, Dr. Vibha Rani , has examined the victim, aged about 4-5 years, on 25.4.2013 at 9:19 p.m. On examination, no mark of injury or assault was found on external part of the body. Secondary sex character was not developed. Axillary and public hair absent. Breast not developed. At the time of examination, the victim had not put on inner garments and no stain of foreign body was found on her private part.
On P/V examination.- Hymen was found ruptured. There was radish colouration of labia minora and introitus. Fourchette was intact. Vaginal examination was very difficult due to pain. Smear was taken from posterior
Page/6
fornix of vagina with her help of cotton bud and the smear taken was blood stained. The doctor opined that there is definite sign of some sexual assault on the victim. However from the pathological report she did not find any alive or dead spermatozoa.
In cross-examination, the doctor has deposed that the injury found in the private parts of the victim cannot be possible by falling.
Page/7
appellant and her undergarments were removed by this appellant and this appellant committed rape upon her, as the mother of the girl (P.W.3) found injury on her private part and P.W.7 found her bleeding.
“4. After considering the evidence adduced by the parties, the High Court was of the view that it is well settled that the woman who is a victim of sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime. Her evidence cannot be tested with suspicion as that of an accomplice. As a matter of fact her evidence is similar to the evidence of an injured complainant or witness. The testimony of the prosecutrix, if found reliable by itself may be sufficient to convict the culprit and no corroboration of her evidence is necessary. Secondly, in prosecution of rape, the law does not require corroboration. The evidence of the prosecutrix may sustain a conviction. It is only by way of abundant caution that the court may look for some corroboration so as to satisfy its conscience and rule out any false accusations. Thus, the High Court was of the view that the trial court had not committed any error in convicting the appellant under Section 376 IPC. The statement of the prosecutrix was reliable. Prompt FIR was lodged by her and no further corroboration of her statement was required.”
Page/8
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. - I agree.
GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. )
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi. Dated: 21/08/2024 AFR-Anu/Cp3.
Page/9
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Trial Court properly appreciated oral and medical evidence to convict the appellant under Section 376(2)(i) IPC.
Whether the conviction based on circumstantial evidence and witness testimonies was justified despite defence objections.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ravindra v. State of M.P.Relied on¶13
Ravindra v. State of M.P. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 491 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ramu Sanga @ Kariyappa @ Samu Sanga
The State of Jharkhand
Ananda Sen
Gautam Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
