Dismissed

Chitrapati Munda v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC6 Mar 2024Cr.A(SJ)/684/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against conviction under Section 376 IPC for rape of a 13-year-old girl. The court affirmed the conviction, holding a minor's testimony needs no corroboration and her consent is immaterial, but reduced sentence to the period already undergone.

What did the court decide?

Conviction affirmed; sentence modified to period of imprisonment already undergone (over four years).

Chitrapati Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 684 of 2012

¶3

[ Against the judgment of conviction dated 15.06.2012 and order of sentence dated 16.06.2012 passed by learned Judicial Commissioner-IV, Ranchi in S.T. No. 192 of 2007]

¶4

Chitrapati Munda @ Chaman Munda .... .... …. Appellant --Versus-The State of Jharkhand …. …. …. Respondent For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Niwas Roy, Advocate For the State : Ms. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P.

¶5

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶8

By Court 1. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, is under challenge in the instant appeal.

¶9

As per the FIR, lodged by the prosecutrix, aged about 13 years, she was the student of Class VI and on 10.10.2006, in afternoon at around 3:30 pm, she had gone for cutting grass for cattle near Bijulia Dam. In the meantime, at around 5 O’clock appellant Chitrapati Munda @ Chaman Munda in order to commit rape with her, grabbed and lifted her. In order to get away from the clutches of the accused, she jumped into the nearby well where the accused also jumped along with her. She was taken out by the accused from the well and rape was committed with her at that place. Later on, she was taken to the house of Kariya Munda and she was subjected to repeated sexual assault by him. In the morning at 4 O’clock, she was brought to his home and threatened her for not disclosing the matter to anyone.

¶10

On the basis of written report, Ormanjhi P.S. Case No.100 of 2006 was registered under Sections 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and he was put on trial.

¶11

Altogether seven witnesses including the prosecutrix were examined on behalf of the prosecution and the relevant documents including the medico legal examination report were adduced into evidence, marked as exhibits. After prosecution evidence, the statements of the appellants have been recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The defence is of innocence, but no specific defence has been pleaded. The trial Court acquitted the appellant for the charge under Section 366A of IPC and convicted him for the offence under Section 376 of IPC.

¶12

The judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been assailed on the ground that there are serious infirmities in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Testimony of the victim is not supported by any independent witnesses. First place of occurrence is said to be the well. The time of incidence is stated to be around 5 O’clock despite this, it is surprising as to how it did not draw attention of any passersby.

¶13

¶14

The second place of occurrence is said to be the house of Kariya Munda. P.W. 3- Budhni Devi has deposed that she has not supported that the rape was committed in her house where they stayed for only for an hour. The prosecutrix had an opportunity to raise alarm and seek help from the inmates in the house of Kariya Munda, but she did not disclose anything regarding the said incidence to them. Further, it is argued that the medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted on 12.10.2006 only two days after the alleged incidence. However, the Doctor did not find any external or internal injury or pain anywhere. No injury was found on the private part. In para 3, the Doctor deposed that there was no struggle or injury.

¶15

Learned counsel for the State has defended the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. It is argued that the victim girl is minor aged 15-16 years as per the opinion of Doctor (P.W. 6). The Doctor has also found and deposed that there were sign of recent sexual intercourse. The girl has explained in her deposition that she did not sustained any injury when jumped into a well as it was full of water.

¶16

It is settled position of law that in cases of sexual assault, the evidence of prosecutrix is to be treated at par that of an injured witness, so much that no corroboration is necessary. Where the sexual intercourse is established there is a presumption of absence of consent under section 114 A of the Evidence Act. This presumption is a presumption of fact, and is restricted in its application compared to the presumption under Section 113 A and 113 B of the Evidence Act (Refer to Raju & Others Vs State of M.P. , (2008)15 SCC 133 )

¶17

Absence of injury to a victim of sexual assault will not in all cases be fatal to the prosecution, if the testimony of the victim is cogent and reliable and trustworthy. The victim has explained in her testimony that there was water in the well therefore, she did not sustain any injury.

¶18

Victim is a minor and therefore, her consent is immaterial, once the allegation of sexual intercourse is established.

¶19

To begin with the said incidence took place on 10.10.2006 and the FIR is lodged without any delay on the very next day of the incidence i.e. 11.10.2006. Victim was examined by the Doctor (P.W. 6) on 12.10.2006 and he has opined that there was evidence of sexual intercourse present at the time of examination. Victim was with the accused, is proved by the testimony of P.W. 3 Budhni Devi. There is no material to show that the prosecutrix had any intention to falsely implicate the accused. She has stated in no uncertain terms that the Appellant had committed rape with her on the said night. It is true that she had opportunity to protest or raise alarm against the sexual assault when she was in the house of Kariya Munda, but as stated earlier the victim being minor, this cannot negate the offence. Consent of a minor at best can be considered at the point of sentence. I do not find any infirmity in the

¶20

¶21

judgement of conviction which is accordingly affirmed.

¶22

On the point of sentence considering the submissions made that evidence suggests that it was a consensual affair and he is a poor tribal having already served the sentence of more than four years, this Court is of the view that there are mitigating circumstances for awarding less than minimum sentence, and the period undergone by the Appellant will serve the ends of justice.

¶23

Appeal is dismissed with modification of sentence.

¶24

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, 6^th March, 2024 NAFR/AKT/Anit

Chitrapati Munda v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chitrapati Munda v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohit Modi And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Shivcharan Marandi Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Uco Bank, Bit Mesra Branch Vs Smt.Renu Sharma And Ors.

Faizur Rahman Vs State of Jharkhand Thr CBI

Munna Sah Alias Munna Sahu Vs State of Jharkhand

Babu Lal Gope Vs State of Jharkhand