Dharmendra Sikdar Vs State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Dharmendra Sikdar Vs State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — the conviction under Sections 376 and 366 I.P.C. and the sentences imposed by the Trial Court stand undisturbed; the appeal and any pending I.A. stand dismissed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the victim girl voluntarily accompanied the appellant on account of a love affair and the sexual intercourse was consensual, as contended by the defence, or whether she was forcibly taken away and ravished against her will. +3 more

Court's answer

There is clear-cut evidence of the victim that she was forcibly kidnapped/abducted by the accused, taken to a temple where vermilion was put on her head despite her protest, kept at the appellant's mousi's house and then his own house for about six days, and raped throughout on threat of life; it was not a case of love affair between the appellant and the victim girl.

Ratio / Principle

On the date of occurrence the victim was aged about 16 years, and that fact was not rebutted by the defence through any cogent and reliable evidence; her medical examination opined her age to be between 16-17 years, establishing that she was a minor.

Key takeaways

Admittedly there is no evidence that the victim ever consented to sexual intercourse; even assuming she was 18 plus, consensual intercourse could not be inferred, and therefore the bald plea of consensual sexual intercourse taken by the appellant was rightly negatived by the learned Trial Court.ratio¶15
The victim girl is a fully reliable witness; the testimony of a victim of sexual crime cannot be looked upon with doubt and no corroboration from an independent source is required for such an offence, which usually happens in isolation — seeking corroboration in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury; her recovery from the house of the accused fortifies the occurrence.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Jharkhand High Court (single Judge — Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.; C.A.V. on 31.01.2025, pronounced 17.04.2025) dismissed Cr.A.(SJ) No. 1482 of 2007 and upheld the conviction under Sections 376 and 366 I.P.C. and the sentence — R.I. seven years with fine of Rs.5,000/- (S.376) and R.I. six years (S.366), concurrent, with default stipulation — imposed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.-3), Godda in S.T. No.228 of 2005 (Godda Town P.S. Case No.271 of 2005). The Court held: (i) the victim was aged about 16 years, medically opined 16-17 years, and the defence adduced no cogent evidence to rebut her minority; (ii) the victim's testimony showed she was forcibly kidnapped, taken to Dhansai Temple where vermilion was applied to her head without her will or consent despite protest, kept at the appellant's mousi's house and his own house for about six days and raped throughout under threat of death — it was not a love affair; (iii) admittedly no evidence showed consent, and even assuming she was 18 plus, consensual intercourse could not be inferred, so the plea of consensual intercourse was rightly negatived by the Trial Court; (iv) the testimony of a victim of sexual crime requires no independent corroboration — seeking it adds insult to injury — and the Medical Officer's observations (walking normally, no injury, no spermatozoa in vaginal swabs) do not affect the prosecution story; the victim's recovery from the appellant's house fortified the occurrence; (v) no leniency in sentence was permissible for such a heinous offence, the four-year-custody plea for reduction failing. Pending I.A., if any, also dismissed.

2025:JHHC:11571

Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 1482 of 2007

……

[ Against the Judgment of conviction dated 23.10.2007 and Order of sentence dated 29.10.2007, passed by learned 6^th Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.-3), Godda in Sessions Trial No.228 of 2005 ]

……

Dharmendra Sikdar, son of Suresh Sikdar, resident of village – Goshanda, P.S. Pathargama, District – Godda (Jharkhand).

… Appellant

Versus … Respondent ……

The State of Jharkhand … …… For the Appellant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Adv. For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, A.P.P.

……

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

……

JUDGMENT

C.A.V. on 31.01.2025 Pronounced on 17.04.2025

1. I have already heard the arguments advanced by Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

2. This instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.10.2007 and 29.10.2007 respectively passed by learned 6^th

Cr.A(SJ) No.1482 of 2007

Page | 1

2025:JHHC:11571

Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.-3), Godda in Sessions Trial No.228 of 2005 arising out of Godda (Town) P.S. Case No.271 of 2005 (corresponding to G.R. Case No.884 of 2005), whereby and whereunder, the sole appellant has been held guilty for the offences under Sections 376 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the I.P.C. with fine of Rs.5,000/- and R.I. for six years for the offence punishable under Section 366 of the I.P.C., with default stipulation. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 19.08.2005 since 02:30 p.m., informant’s minor daughter aged about 16 years (victim girl) was traceless from the house, the informant Mahendra Mandal (P.W.3) was attending his work and returned to home in the evening at about 05:00 p.m. then his wife Shila Devi (P.W.2) disclosed about the said incident. It is alleged that the informant along with other family members made hectic search of his daughter, then it was disclosed by his neighbours that victim girl used to talk with the accused Dharmendra Sikdar. The informant went to the house of Dharmendra Sikdar but he was not present and his

Cr.A(SJ) No.1482 of 2007 Page | 2

2025:JHHC:11571

father Suresh Sikdar told that he had gone to Godda in search of job and has not returned. The informant was about to lodge the F.I.R. in connection with the said occurrence, meanwhile, on 22.08.2005 at about 10:30 a.m., Officer-InCharge Godda (Town) Police Station arrived at his house and his fardbeyan was recorded.

4. Accordingly, Godda (Town) P.S. Case No.271 of 2005 was instituted for the offences under Section 363 and 366A of the I.P.C. against the accused Dharmendra Sikdar.

5. In the course of investigation, victim was recovered from the house of accused Dharmendra Sikdar and her statement was got recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and she was also medically examined.

6. After completion of investigation and collection of evidence, the Investigating Officer of the case submitted charge-sheet against the accused for the offences under Section 363, 366A and 376 of the I.P.C.

7. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions where S.T. Case No.228 of 2005 was registered. After Commitment

of the case, charges were framed against the accused appellant under Sections 366 and 376 of the I.P.C. which was

Cr.A(SJ) No.1482 of 2007 Page | 3

2025:JHHC:11571

read over and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. After completion of trial, the appellant was held guilty and sentenced for the offences under Sections 366 and 376 of the I.P.C. as stated above which has been assailed in this appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the victim girl voluntarily accompanied with the appellant on account of love affairs between them and the sexual intercourse was consensual. The victim was a major girl. All these facts are not properly considered by learned Trial Court while appreciating the prosecution evidence. It is further submitted that the victim girl voluntarily solemnized marriage with the appellant at Dhansai Mandir (Temple) by allowing the appellant putting vermilion on her head. The victim girl was residing with the appellant and peaceful marital life was going on but due to lodging of this false case, the victim was influenced by her father to depose against him. The prosecution story is also not corroborated from medical evidence as there was no sign of commission of sexual relationship with the victim girl as no spermatozoa

Cr.A(SJ) No.1482 of 2007 Page | 4

2025:JHHC:11571

was found. She neither complained to anyone nor raised any alarm throughout the period she was residing with the accused appellant. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellant passed by learned Trial Court is absolutely illegal and based on conjecture and surmises beyond the weight of oral and documentary evidence available on record. The appellant deserves acquittal from the charges levelled against him and this appeal may accordingly be allowed.

In the alternative, it is submitted that in the course of trial and pendency of this appeal, the appellant has remained in custody about four years and has sufficiently been punished for his guilt. Therefore, sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the sentence of imprisonment already undergone.

10. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the victim was minor girl aged about 16 years. There is concrete proof of the victim herself that she was forcibly taken away by the accused on extending fear of dire consequences and

Cr.A(SJ) No.1482 of 2007 Page | 5

2025:JHHC:11571

she was ravished for quite long period against her will and without her consent. The accused also attempted to forcibly solemnize marriage with her in a temple. The victim was also recovered from the house of present appellant. Therefore, all incriminating circumstances indicating towards guilt of the appellant which has been proved by prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. The learned Trial Court has very wisely and aptly apprised, appreciated and evaluated the evidence available on record and arrived at right conclusion about the guilt of the appellant. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and no merit in this appeal which is fit to be dismissed. No case for reduction of sentence has been made out in this case and for such a serious and heinous offence, no leniency can be taken in the matter of sentence also.

11. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence in light of the contentions raised on behalf of both side.

12. For better appreciation of the arguments, brief resume

of oral testimony of witnesses is required to be discussed in detailed.

Cr.A(SJ) No.1482 of 2007

Page | 6

2025:JHHC:11571

13. The most important witness of this case is the victim girl who has been examined as P.W.6. According to her evidence, on the date of occurrence, she had gone to search of her goat near the pond of village from where present appellant forcibly caught hold of her and brought to Dhansai Temple and put vermilion on her head without her will and consent in spite of her protest. Thereafter, the accused brought her to Village Kahalgaon at the house of his mousi, where he stayed for 2-4 days. Thereafter, the appellant brought her to Village Gorsanda in his own house. At both the places, the accused committed rape on her threatening to kill. She has further deposed that in the village Gorsanda, Police arrived at the house of accused Dharmendra Sikdar along with her father and she was brought to police station and thereafter, her statement was recorded before the Magistrate and she was also medically examined. In her cross-examination also, she has reiterated the aforesaid incident and stated that she could not raise alarm at any place because the accused had threatened her to kill, if she raised any alarm or disclose the incident to any person. There is nothing in her cross-examination to discredit her testimony

Cr.A(SJ) No.1482 of 2007

Page | 7

2025:JHHC:11571

or disbelieve her evidence. The evidence of the victim girl is further corroborated from the evidence of her parent and her brother.

P.W.2 Shila Devi is the mother of the victim girl who

has also stated that the victim was missing since Savan Purnima of the present year. She had gone to plant paddy crop and her husband had gone to do his work and when he returned in the evening at 05:00 p.m. then she disclosed that her daughter aged about 16 years is missing. She has also disclosed that police recovered her daughter from the house of the accused Dharmendra Sikdar then she disclosed about the said incident. She has also admitted that victim girl is not literate and never gone to any school. No other material has been elicited in her cross-examination.

P.W.3 Mahendra Mandal is the informant-cum-father

of the victim girl. According to him, since on 19.08.2005, at 02:30 p.m. his daughter aged about 16 years was missing. He made hectic search of his daughter but could not found her then lodged this case. He came to know from villagers that Dharmendra Sikdar was frequently talking with the victim girl and he has kidnapped her. He has further deposed that

Cr.A(SJ) No.1482 of 2007 Page | 8

2025:JHHC:11571

he along with police went to the village of accused at Gorsanda, District Godda from where the accused Dharmendra Sikdar fled away from his house but his daughter was found concealed in the room and she was brought by police then she disclosed that she was kidnapped by the accused for illicit intercourse and solemnize marriage with her.

In the cross-examination of this witness, nothing has

been elicited to contradict his aforesaid testimony.

P.W.4 Dr. Mamta has medically examined the victim

girl and found the following on her person:

External Examination:

Walking normally. No injury anywhere on body.

Internal Examination:

Moderate growth of pubic heirs. No foreign heir found at or around the private parts.

Nulli parous:

Hymen of opening – entering two fingers easily.

Micros copical examination of vaginal swabs-spermatozoa not found.

Cr.A(SJ) No.1482 of 2007

Page | 9

2025:JHHC:11571

The doctor has opined that possibility of sexual intercourse cannot be ruled out. Age of the victim was opined to be 16 to 17 years.

P.W.5 Biku Mandal is the brother of the victim girl who

has also disclosed that victim girl was missing from the house and in course of search, she could not be found then case was lodged. His sister was recovered from the house of accused Dharmendra Sikdar then she disclosed that she was forcibly kidnapped by the accused. He has also disclosed the age of victim to be aged 16 years.

In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that on the date of occurrence, he returned in the evening then came to know about the occurrence from his father.

P.W.7 Rajiv Ranjan Sahi is the Investigating Officer of this case. According to his evidence on 22.08.2005, he was posted at Godda (Town) Police Station. On that day, S.I. Upendra Singh has recorded the statement of Mahendra Mandal in presence of this witness which was read over and explained to the informant and he put his signature. Fardbeyan is proved as Ext.3. The charge of investigation was given to him and in the course of investigation, he recorded

Cr.A(SJ) No.1482 of 2007 Page | 10

2025:JHHC:11571

the restatement of the informant and also visited the place of occurrence. The first place of occurrence is situated near Shiv Ganga Pond from where the victim was kidnapped. He also raided for search of the accused but he was absconding from his house but the victim girl was recovered from his house and brought to police station. He also got the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim girl and sent her for medical examination. After conclusion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 363, 366A, 376 of the I.P.C.

In his cross-examination, he has reiterated that the victim girl was kidnapped by accused from her house. There is nothing in his cross-examination to discredit his evidence.

P.W.1 Puran Mandal has been declared hostile by the prosecution.

14. On the other hand, case of defence is plea of innocence and false implication. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence.

15. From the aforesaid discussion of prosecution evidence,

it is crystal clear that on the date of occurrence, the victim was aged about 16 years and that fact is not rebutted by the

Cr.A(SJ) No.1482 of 2007

Page | 11

2025:JHHC:11571

defence through any cogent and reliable evidence. In her medical examination report also, the age of victim is opined to be between 16-17 years. The mother of the victim has categorically stated that victim has never gone to any school. Although, Investigating Officer of the case has stated that the victim was student of Class V but no evidence was collected in this regard. The defence has also not brought on record any evidence in respect of age of the victim. There is clear cut evidence of the victim that she was girl forcibly kidnapped/abducted by the accused and brought to a temple and vermilion was put on her head, thereafter, she was brought to the house of mousi of the appellant, thereafter, to his own house and was kept about six days and on all the above six days, he has committed rape on extending threat of life. It is not a case of love affair between the appellant and the victim girl. Admittedly, there is no evidence that the victim has ever consented for sexual intercourse. Under such circumstances, even if it may be assumed that she was 18 plus, it cannot be inferred that the sexual intercourse was consensual. Therefore, the bald plea of consensual sexual

Cr.A(SJ) No.1482 of 2007

Page | 12

2025:JHHC:11571

intercourse taken by the appellant has rightly been negated by the learned Trial Court.

16. The totality of circumstances unerringly pointed out that the victim girl is fully reliable witness and her recovery from the house of the accused appellant fortifies the happening of occurrence against the victim girl, which cannot be doubted from any stretch of imagination. The learned Trial Court has rightly observed that the testimony of victim of sexual crime cannot be looked under doubt and no corroboration from independent source is required for such offence, which usually happens in isolation. Seeking corroboration in such cases, amounts to adding insult to the injury. Therefore, any observation by the Medical Officer regarding commission of rape and no mark of injury or sign of rape does not affect the prosecution story. The learned Trial Court has very wisely and aptly considered the ingredients of offence under Section 366 and 376 of the I.P.C. which have been conclusively proved against the present appellant. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of

Cr.A(SJ) No.1482 of 2007

Page | 13

2025:JHHC:11571

sentence of the appellant for the aforesaid offences and no merit in this appeal.

17. So far quantum of sentence is concerned that also does not require any interference and no leniency in the matter of sentence can be taken in such type of heinous offence in absence of any valid justification for the same.

18. In view of the above discussion and reasons, this appeal stands dismissed.

19. Pending I.A., if any, stands dismissed.

20. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court record be sent back to the concerned Trial Court for information and needful.

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 17/04/2025

Sachin / NAFR

Cr.A(SJ) No.1482 of 2007

Page | 14