Prahlad Rai Vs State of Jharkhand

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.197 of 2012

(Against the Judgment of conviction dated 13.01.2012 and order of sentence dated 18.01.2012, passed by learned District & Sessions Judge-II, Dhanbad, in Session Trial No.280 of 2010 (arising out of Nirsa [Kalubathan O.P.] P.S. Case No.76 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No.983 of 2010).

¶5

Prahlad Rai …. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand. ….. Respondent P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶6

For the Appellant : Mr. Kumar Nilesh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Naveen kr. Gaunjhu, APP

¶7

By Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the

¶8

State.

¶9

1. The instant Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 13.01.2012 and order of sentence dated 18.01.2012, passed by learned District & Sessions Judge-II, Dhanbad, in Session Trial No.280 of 2010 (arising out of Nirsa [Kalubathan O.P.] P.S. Case No.76 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No.983 of 2010), whereby the sole appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo RI for seven years and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default thereof, further to undergo R.I. for three months.

¶10

2. The case of the prosecution in brief, as set out in the FIR [which was registered on the basis of fardbeyan of the prosecutrix recorded on 14.03.2010 at 14:30 hours] is that on 13.03.2010 at about 3.30 PM., she had gone to the forest area for grazing her goat when the accused/appellant taking advantage of her being alone committed rape with her. It is alleged that she was dragged into the bushes and after rape, he fled away from the place of occurrence.

¶11

3 . After the incidence the victim returned home. On that day, her husband was not there as he had gone to the village haat in the evening and when he returned, she narrated about the incidence to him and he along with some co-villagers went to the house of the appellant/accused. Appellant was not at home, the father of the appellant/accused expressed his helplessness as his son has committed the offence. When at night, her husband along with her brother, (P.W.4- Rajendra Prasad) went to the house of the appellant they were assaulted by accused, Shankar Rai, Shyam Pado Rai and others. They also damaged his motorcycle.

¶12

4 . On the fardbeyan ' of prosecutrix, the Police instituted First Information Report being Nirsa [Kalubathan O.P.] P.S. Case No.76 of 2010 and the Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused person(s) under Sections 376, 147, 341, 323

¶13

2

¶14

and 504 IPC. The accused, Shankar Ram, Shyampado Rai, Jatin Rai, Ghaltu Rai and Pratham Rai were charged under Sections 376/ 147/ 341/ 323/ 34 and 504 IPC whereas accused/ appellant, Prahlad Rai was charged under Section 376 IPC including other sections.

¶15

5 . Learned Trial Court has convicted all the accused persons of the offences charged. Accused/ appellant, Prahlad Rai was convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC for 7 years and fine amount whereas other accused persons were given the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offender’s Act and were released on execution of the bonds. 6 . The judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant/accused is assailed on the ground that the oral account of the prosecutrix has not been corroborated by the medical evidence. It is submitted in this regard that as per the case of the prosecution, the prosecutrix in the incidence has sustained scratches, but the Doctor has not noted any external or internal injury. The Medico-legal-examination report has been adduced into the evidence and marked as Exhibit-2 wherein no injury has been found. It is submitted that in view of the inconsistency between medical evidence and the oral evidence, the appellant is entitled to get the benefit of doubt in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following cases :-

¶16

(a) 2006 (9) SCC 713 (b) 2007 (12) SCC 390

¶17

(c) 2020 (19) SCC 347

¶18

7 . Learned APP for the State has defended the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. It is submitted that the corroboration of the prosecutrix account is required, only where their exists the ground for suspicion in her testimony.

¶19

8 . It is submitted that testimony of P.W.5 (Hemant Kumar Mahto) is relevant in the present context as he has deposed that on 13.03.2010 at 3:30 PM, in the afternoon, he heard hulla from the house of one Sudhir Mahto where his wife, said that rape has been committed upon her by Prahlad Rai. When he went there and found scratches on her leg and her elbow. Thereafter he reached the house of Prahlad Rai at 7 to 7.30 when they complained to his father, accused, Ghaltu Rai, Jiten Rai, Syampado Rai and others entered into altercation with them.

¶20

9 . Another witness, P.W.3 (Durga Charan Mahto) is an independent witness and a covillager has deposed that at 5.30 PM, when he went to the house of Sudhir Mahto, his wife informed about the incidence of rape which took place when she had gone for grazing her goat. He has also corroborated the incidence that took place when her husband and others went to complain about the incidence to the father of the appellant.

¶21

10 . P.W.4 (Rajendra Prasad Mahto), the brother of the victim is an injured witness. He has also given consistent account about the incidence that took place on the line as stated by the other witnesses.

¶22

3

¶23

ANALYSIS

¶24

11 . Prosecution case unfolds into two stages. The first stage is that when the offence of rape was committed in the desolate jungle area where the prosecutrix was all alone and has gone to graze her goat. Second stage is that when the family members and others of the prosecutrix went to complain about the incidence to the father of the accused/appellant, where they were assaulted by the accused persons.

¶25

12 . With regard to first stage of incidence prosecutrix (PW-8), the incidence took place at around 3:30 P.M when taking advantage of her being alone in the jungle area, rape was committed by the appellant/accused. Defence has failed to elicit any contradiction in the account of the witnesses and the attention has not been drawn of the statement of prosecutrix made in the fardbeyan or to her restatement to elicit any contradiction. To this part of the incidence prosecutrix is the solitary eyewitness. There is no reason cited on behalf of the appellant to suspect the account as given by the prosecutrix or any motive for false implication. Law is settled that if the testimony of prosecutrix is trustworthy a judgment of conviction can be returned on her solitary account.

¶26

13 . There was no concealment on the part of the prosecutrix, and immediately after returning from the forest area to the village, she complains about the incidence to the villagers. Witnesses have consistently stated about the subsequent conduct of the prosecutrix (admissible under Section 8), wherein she complains about the incidence to the covillagers.

¶27

14 . With regard to the incidence in the evening when the other co-accused assaulted the husband of the victim and others, witnesses have given a consistent account, which remains undemolished in the cross-examination. Appeal has not been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence with regard to this part of the incidence.

¶28

15 . Neither any consistent defence case has been put-forward nor suggestion given to the witnesses or in statement given by the accused under Section 313 Cr. P. C. The defence is of plain denial and there is nothing on record to suggest that the prosecutrix had any motive to falsely implicate the accused/ appellant.

¶29

16 . Appeal hinges on Medico Legal Examination Report (Ext-2) wherein no external injury was found. Law is settled that cogent, consistent and trustworthy evidence of victim of rape, cannot be brushed aside on the mere ground that it was not fully corroborated

¶30

by medical report. It has been held in Mukesh v. State of Chhattisgarh ,

¶31

(2014) 10 SCC 327:-

¶32

15. Further, as has been repeatedly held by this Court in a catena of cases, the sole testimony of the witness ( sic prosecutrix) is sufficient to establish the commission of rape even in the absence of corroborative evidence. Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Mohd. Iqbal v. State of Jharkhand [(2013) 14 SCC 481 : (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 271] , which states as under: (SCC p. 485, paras 17-19)

¶33

“ 17 . There is no prohibition in law to convict the accused of rape on the basis of sole testimony of the prosecutrix and the law does not require that her statement be corroborated by the statements of other witnesses.

¶34

4

¶35

18 . In Narender Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2012) 7 SCC 171] this Court has observed that even if a woman is of easy virtues or used to sexual intercourse, it cannot be a licence for any person to commit rape and it further held: (SCC p. 180, paras 30-31)

¶36

‘ 30 . … conviction can be based on sole testimony of the prosecutrix provided it lends assurance to her testimony. However, in case the court has reason not to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may look for corroboration. In case the evidence is read in its totality and the story projected by the prosecutrix is found to be improbable, the prosecutrix's case becomes liable to be rejected.

¶37

31 . The court must act with sensitivity and appreciate the evidence in totality of the background of the entire case and not in the isolation. Even if the prosecutrix is of easy virtues/unchaste woman that itself cannot be a determinative factor and the court is required to adjudicate whether the accused committed rape on the victim on the occasion complained of.’

¶38

***

¶39

19 . In the statements of the appellant-accused under Section 313 CrPC, only a bald statement had been made by both the appellant-accused that they were innocent. No explanation had been furnished by either of them as to why the prosecutrix had deposed against them and involved them in such a heinous crime.”

¶40

Authority relied upon will be of no avail in the present case as Exhibit-4 is the requisition dated 14.03.2010 of the investigating officer for medico legal examination of the prosecutrix wherein there is definite reference to scratches sustained by the victim on her body. Two injury reports have been brought on record, one is Exhibit-2 dated 20.03.2010 wherein it has been stated that the victim was examined on 15.03.2010 and this report does not refer to any injury. Another injury report brought on record is Exhibit-B of 14.03.2010 on behalf of the defence, which specifically refers to the injury sustained by the victim.

¶41

Under the circumstances, this Court does not find any material contradiction between the oral evidence and the medical evidence. There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

¶42

The instant Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. Bail granted to the appellant earlier is cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the learned Trial Court within a period of two weeks to serve the remainder of the sentence.

¶43

Let L.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned at

¶44

once.

¶45

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶46

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 17^th January, 2024. sandeep/

Prahlad Rai v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prahlad Rai v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Udit Mahto And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Basant Kumar Hetamsaria And Anr. Vs Director General,Defence Estate

Prakash Modi Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Sunil Kumar Nayak Vs State of Jharkhand

Ruplal Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sona Devi Alias Piyaso Devi Vs State of Jharkhand