Dismissed¶¶29

Dinesh Ram Alias Dinesh Kumar Ram v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC14 May 2024Cr.A(SJ)/105/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal (single judge), Jharkhand — rape of a minor girl (stated age about 16 years). Points of interest: conviction under S.376 IPC and S.4 POCSO Act affirmed; appellate reliance on the victim's testimony despite the medical examination not proving recent vaginal intercourse and a radiological age estimate of 17–18 years; sentence of 7 years' R.I. plus Rs. 10,000/- fine maintained. Useful for searches on POCSO convictions upheld on victim testimony where clinical evidence is inconclusive.

What did the court decide?

The prosecution proved its case that the appellant raped the victim as alleged, a minor girl aged about 16 years. ¶¶28

Dinesh Ram Alias Dinesh Kumar Ram Vs the… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 105 of 2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶4

[Against the judgment of conviction dated 16.01.2020 (sentence passed on 17.01.2020) passed by Sri Ajit Kumar, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Garhwa in connection with POCSO Case No. 45/2017, arising out of Garhwa P.S. Case No. 294 of 2017, Corresponding to G. R. No. 1561 of 2017]

¶5

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 105 of 2020

¶6

Dinesh Ram @ Dinesh Kumar Ram

¶7

… Appellant -VersusThe State Jharkhand … Respondent

¶8

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

¶10

For the Appellant : M/s. Krishna Prajapati Advocate For the State : M/s. Pankaj Kumar .P.P.

¶11

---------

¶12

C.A.V. On 12.04.2024 Pronounced on 14.05.2024

¶13

1. Heard Mr. Krishan Prajapati learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Pankaj Kumar learned .P.P. for the State.

¶14

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 16.01.2020 (sentence passed on 17.01.2020) passed by Sri Ajit Kumar, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Garhwa in connection with POCSO Case No. 45/2017, arising out of Garhwa P.S. Case No. 294 of 2017, Corresponding to G. R. No. 1561 of 2017, holding the appellant guilty of offence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and section 04 of the POCSO Act and thereby sentencing him to undergo R.I for 7 years alongwith a fine of rupees 10,000/for the offence under section 04 of the POCSO Act, in default of payment of fine he was further directed to undergo R.I. for six months. No separate sentence was passed for the offence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the written report of the victim alleging therein that on 08.09.2017 at about 03:00 P.M., she was returning home from her grandmother's house, while on the way she went to meet call of nature and the appellant intercepted her and dragged her to a nearby field and raped her. She has stated that at the time of occurrence she

¶16

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 105 of 2020

¶17

¶18

was aged about 16 years.

¶19

4. After investigation police found the occurrence to be true and submitted charge-sheet under sections 376(2) (1) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 04 of the POCSO Act. The cognizance of the case was taken by the learned court under the aforesaid sections.

¶20

5. Charge was framed against the appellant on 19.01.2018 under Section 376(2) (1) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 04 of the POCSO Act. The contents of the charge were read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried . 6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. On the basis of the evidence, available on the record learned trial court held the appellant guilty and sentenced him accordingly. 7. The victim has been examined as P.W.1 and she has stated that the occurrence took place about six to seven months ago, at about 03:00 P.M., she was returning home from her grandmother’s house. In the meantime, on the way she went to meet call of nature when the appellant came there gagged her mouth, dragged her to a nearby field and raped her. She returned home and told her mother about the occurrence. She has identified the signature on the written report which is Ext.- 1. She has stated that her statement was recorded under section 164 Cr.PC. She has identified the signature of this statement which is Ext.-2. She has been cross-examined at length. She has stated that she was not acquainted with the appellant prior to the occurrence. She has stated that after the occurrence, she and Dinesh Ram were assaulted by local people. She has also stated that at the instance of Mukhiya Devanti Devi, council Putia Devi tonsured her hair and the victim was taken to the police station.

¶21

8. Rupa Devi P.W.3 is the mother of the victim. She has stated that about one and half years ago, her daughter was returning from her grandmother's house, on the way, appellant had raped her. She has identified the appellant in the dock. She has stated that her daughter used to go to school at 09:00 A.M. and return at 01:00 P.M., if the classes were held according to morning routine and 03:00 P.M., if the classes were held according to day routine. She has further stated that on the date of occurrence her daughter had not gone to school.

¶22

Ajay Baitha P.W.4 is father of the victim. He has stated that on 08.09.2017. He was in Garhwa when he was informed about the occurrence. He came home when his daughter told him that the appellant Dinesh Ram @

¶23

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 105 of 2020

¶24

¶25

Dinesh Kumar Ram had raped her daughter.

¶26

9. Dr. Ragini Agrawal P.W.2 is the doctor who had examined the victim. According to her, recent vaginal sexual intercourse was not proved. According to her radiological report, age of the victim was around 17 to 18 years. The victim who has been examined as P.W.1 has categorically stated that on the date of occurrence at about 03:00 P.M., when she was returning from her grandmother's house, on the way she went to meet call of nature and at that time appellant came there, gagged her mouth dragged her to a nearby field and raped her. There is nothing in her cross-examination to doubt her veracity.

¶27

Both the victim P.W.1 and her mother has stated that at the time of occurrence the victim was aged about 16 years.

¶28

10. From the aforesaid facts of the case; I am of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case that the appellant has raped the victim as alleged, who was a minor girl aged about 16 years.

¶29

11. This appeal is dismissed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court does not require any interference. 12. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

¶30

(Ambuj Nath J.)

¶31

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi. Dated:- 14.05.2024 Saurabh/ NAFR

Dinesh Ram Alias Dinesh Kumar Ram v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Ram Alias Dinesh Kumar Ram v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jotul Nath Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ijrail Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Barik Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rahul Kumar Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abhishekh Jha Alias Chhotu Paswan Alias Chhutu Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ranjeet Kumar Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand