Juba Beba Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

¶1

2026:JHHC:9773

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Acquittal Appeal (S.J.) No. 10 of 2014

¶4

-----

¶5

( Against the judgment of acquittal dated 16.05.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No.98 of 2012 by Sri Ram Bachan Singh, Additional Sessions JudgeII, Sahibganj)

¶6

Juba Beba, W/o Late Islam Seikh, R/o Village-Karbala, Narayanpur, P.O.Narayanpur, P.S.-Rajmahal, District- Sahibganj, Jharkhand

¶7

--- --- Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶10

Gulam Rasul @ Lattu, S/o Late Anardi Sheikh

¶11

Alia Bibi, W/o Gulam Rasul R/o Village- Karbala, Narayanpur, P.O.- Narayanpur, P.S.-Rajmahal, District- Sahibganj, Jharkhand --- --- Respondents

¶12

For the Appellant : Mr. Din Dayal Saha, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.PP. For the Resp. No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Mahabir Pd. Sinha, Advocate Mr. Santosh Kr. Jha, Advocate

¶13

PRESENT

¶14

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶15

J U D G M E N T

¶16

07.04.2026

¶17

1. Heard learned counsel the appellant; learned Spl.P.P. representing the State and the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 & 3.

¶18

2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of acquittal dated 16.05.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No.98 of 2012 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Sahibganj whereby the learned Appellate Court has allowed the appeal of the private respondents filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.10.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge cum

¶19

Acq. Appeal (SJ) No. 10 of 2014

¶20

1

¶21

2026:JHHC:9773

¶22

J.M.1^st Class, Rajmahal in P.C.R. Case No. 397 of 2008 corresponding to T.R. No. 762 of 2012 whereby the Respondent No. 2 has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 341 and 354 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo S.I. for 1 month and 1 year respectively under both the sections with default clause. Further the respondent no. 2 has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 and 504 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I. 6 months each under both counts. However, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶23

3 . The criminal law has been put into motion on lodging a complaint dated 01.08.2008 vide PCR Case No. 397 of 2008 by the complainant- Juba Beba before the court of ACJM, Rajmahal against both the private respondents.

¶24

The brief story as per the complainant is she was working as Sahaika in Aanganbari centre situated at village Narayanpur Karbala, Hasim Maksudpur Tola, where Aliya Bibi (respondent no. 3) was also engaged as Sevika. It is further stated that on the evening of 30.07.2008 when she was at her home then her son Maju Sk told her that Gulam Rasul ( respondent no.2) has called her to give monthly salary appertaining to the Anganbari job. When she went to his house then seeing her Gulam Rasul told her to go inside the house and receive her salary from his wife Aliya Bibi and accordingly she went inside the house and knocked for Aliya Bibi but there was no response. In the meantime, Gulam Rasul came from behind and asked for her cohabitation on the inducement of money of which she resisted but despite the objection, Gulam Rasul pressed her mouth and caught hold of her and thereafter laid her down on the surface and after untying his lungi started making efforts to rape her by mounting over her body. In that course, when she (complainant) anyhow succeeded in removing his hand from her mouth, raised alarm and on hearing the same witnesses namely Afatbuddin and Sekhbar Ali reached there and

¶25

Acq. Appeal (SJ) No. 10 of 2014

¶26

2

¶27

2026:JHHC:9773

¶28

rescued her. Later on many co villagers assembled there who scolded the accused and started talking to settle the matter through an adjudicatory process. In the meantime, Aliya Bibi wife of Gulam Rasul came there and started assaulting her by pulling her hairs and also threatened to implicate in a false case to any person who will try to settle the dispute through panchayti. On the next day i.e on 31.07.2008 a panchayti was convened but the accused did not turn up, hence the complainant approached the police station but the police did not take any response, hence the complaint case.

¶29

4. Thereafter, the complaint petition was admitted by the learned ACJM, Rajmahal and transferred the same to the court of SDJM, Rajmahal for trial and disposal. After inquiry a prima facie case was found against the accused and accordingly processes were issued and further on completion of appearance, the accusation was explained against both the accused on 06.01.2010 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶30

5. Later on, evidences commenced and in that course after examination of the three witnesses the evidence on behalf of the complainant had been closed and accordingly the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C were recorded in which too both the accused denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent.

¶31

6. Thereafter the case came up for defence evidence and in that course two witnesses have also been examined on behalf of the defence. The defence of the appellants as per trend of the cross examination and the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is complete denial of the complainant’s allegation and claimed false implication on account of dispute in the Aanganbari Centre.

¶32

7. To substantiate the charge altogether three complainant witnesses were examined as under:

¶33

I. C.W.1 – Sekbar Sk. He has stated in his examination-inchief that the incident occurred two years ago at 7.30 in the

¶34

3 Acq. Appeal (SJ) No. 10 of 2014

¶35

2026:JHHC:9773

¶36

evening on Wednesday. He has stated that when he reached Mahajan Tola, he heard noises in front of the house of the accused Gulam Rasul and saw that Gulam Rasul was sitting over the complainant. Thereafter he along with Aftab Ali and Sultan rescued her. Wife of Gulam Rasul also came there and pulled the hair of the complainant. In cross examination he has stated that he has seen the occurrence. He has further stated that he took out Gulam Rasul from the place of occurrence and there after quarrel also happened. Many people assembled there. He has stated that the dispute was because of salary. In his cross examination at para 4 he has stated that his house is about 1 ½ kms away from the place of occurrence at Mahajan Tola. In para 6 of his cross examination he has stated that he works as a labourer and for work he goes to Mumbai for about two months. Further, he has stated that on 30.07.2008 he went to Mumbai for work. II. C.W.2 – Aftabuddin Sk – He has stated in his examinationin-chief that the incident happened 2 ½ years ago at 7.30 in the evening. On hearing noise he went to the house of accused Gulam Rasul and saw that he was sitting over the complainant. Then with the help of other villagers he pulled Gulam Rasul out of the house. He has further stated that many villagers assembled there. He asked Gulam Rasul to settle the matter, then he threatened to implicate them in a case. In his cross examination he has stated that accused Gulam Rasul was naked and he and Sekbar as well as Sultan caught the hand of accused Gulam Rasul. He has stated at para 8 of his cross examination that his house is at a distance of half kilometer from the house of complainant.

¶37

III. C.W.3-Joba Bewa - She is the complainant herself. She has stated in her examination-in- chief that the incident occurred

¶38

Acq. Appeal (SJ) No. 10 of 2014

¶39

4

¶40

2026:JHHC:9773

¶41

2 months less than 3 years at 7.30 in the evening on Wednesday. She has stated that her son Maju told her that the accused Gulam Rasul has called her. She went to the house of Gulam Rasul where he told her to go inside the house where his wife Aliya Bibi would give her the money. As soon as she went inside the house, Gulam Rasul came from the back side and tried to outrage her modesty by throwing her on the floor and sat over her chest. On raising alarm, Atabuddin and Sultan came there and rescued her. Thereafter, the wife of the Gulam Rasul came there. Due to threatening, panchayati was not convened. She has stated that she went to the police station but the case was not registered. Thereafter, complaint case was lodged. In her cross-examination, she has stated that Aliya Bibi pulled her hair and assaulted her. She has further stated that she was thrown on the floor and on raising alarm, witnesses came there.

¶42

8. On the other hand, the defence has also adduced two witnesses in support of their case as under:

¶43

I. D.W.1 -Saifuddin Sk- he has stated that he knows both the parties and a denied of any occurrence. In his crossexamination, he has further stated that the rape case is completely false.

¶44

II. D.W.2-Jhaksu Sk - He has also stated that the complainant was a sahayika in the Aangan Bari Centre. Her salary was stopped by the Government. The complaint case lodged by the complainant is false.

¶45

9. Apart from the oral evidences, some documentary evidences were also adduced as under:

¶46

i. Ext. A- C.C of formal F.I.R of Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 153 of 2007 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 332 of

¶47

5 Acq. Appeal (SJ) No. 10 of 2014

¶48

2026:JHHC:9773

¶49

2007

¶50

ii. Ext. B - C.C. of final form submitted by Police in the aforesaid case concluding the same to be the false one.

¶51

iii. Ext.C- C.C of extract of order sheet dt. 27.09.2005 appertaining to information petition no. 473 of 2005.

¶52

iv. Ext.C/1- C.C of order dated 26.04.2007 passed in aforesaid information case no. 249 of 2007.

¶53

10. On the basis of above evidence, the learned Trial Court framed four (4) questions under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., which are as under:

¶54

Gulam Rasul & Aliya Bibi

¶55

प्रश्न क्या आप गवाह ों का बयान सुना है ? उत्तर :- जी हााँ

¶56

प्रश्न गवाह ों का कहना है कक किनाोंक 30.07.2008 क समय करीब 7 ½ बजे सोंध्या पररवाकिनी आपके घर आोंगनबाड़ी के काम का माकसक वेतन लेने आयी, इसी िरमयान आप गुलाम रसूल बुरी कनयत से पररवाकिनी के शरीर पर हाथ किए तथा आप आकलआ बीबी लप्पड़ थप्पड़ से मारपीट ककये

¶57

, क्या कहना सही है ?

¶58

उत्तरः - ऐसी बात नही है

¶59

प्रश्न : क्या आपक सफाई में कुछ कहना है ?

¶60

उत्तरः - कवर ध

¶61

प्रश्न : क्या आप सफाई साक्ष िेंगे ? उत्तरः - साक्ष िेंगे

¶62

11. On the basis of above evidences, the learned Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused person for the offence punishable under Section 341 and 354 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo S.I. for 1 month and 1 year respectively under both the sections. Further the respondent no. 2 has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 and 504 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I. 6 months each under both counts. However, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶63

Acq. Appeal (SJ) No. 10 of 2014

¶64

6

¶65

2026:JHHC:9773

¶66

12. Being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction, the accused preferred criminal appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 98 of 2012. The learned Appellate Court after appreciating the evidences has acquitted the accused persons from the charges levelled against them.

¶67

13. Being aggrieved with the judgment of acquittal, the complainant has preferred the present acquittal appeal.

¶68

14. Learned counsel for the appellant (complainant) has challenged the judgment of acquittal on the ground that there is a clear-cut statement by the victim regarding the commission of crime and that has been supported by two witnesses, still, the judgment of acquittal has been passed.

¶69

15. Learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the informant have supported the judgment of acquittal on the following grounds:-

¶70

(i) The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C itself suggests that the trial court has not believed the story as disclosed in the complaint petition as stated by the complainant and the complainant witnesses.

¶71

(ii) There are so much contradictions in the statements of the complainant as well as the complainant witness i.e., C.W-1 and C.W-4.

¶72

(iii) In his cross examination, C.W-1 admitted that he was in Bombay and his house is situated about one kilometre away from the place of occurrence and his presence at the relevant time has not been explained. The manner of commission of crime has also been disbelieved by the trial court itself.

¶73

(iv) C.W.-2 also stayed far away from the place of occurrence and his presence has been found doubtful. The manner of commission of crime has been explained which does not find corroboration by one or the other witnesses. The

¶74

Acq. Appeal (SJ) No. 10 of 2014

¶75

7

¶76

2026:JHHC:9773

¶77

complainant has made bald statement which does not find confidence as the house in question was one room house and that was opened and the wife of the accused as well as the children were also present in the house.

¶78

16 . Thus, the Appellate Court has rightly reappreciated the evidence and found that the witnesses examined by the complainant are not reliable and accordingly, the judgment of acquittal has been passed.

¶79

17. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the records, it appears that:-

¶80

1. The story disclosed by the complainant is full of contradictions.

¶81

1. The complainant witnesses have contradicted each other and their presence at the place of occurrence is doubtful.

¶82

1. The place of occurrence is a single room and on being raised alarm, several persons have arrived there, but none have been examined.

¶83

1. The manner of commission of crime has been disbelieved by the trial court itself.

¶84

18 . In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the Appellate Court. 19. Accordingly, the present acquittal appeal stands dismissed.

¶85

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶86

Dated 7^th April 2026 A. Mohanty/ Raja Jharkhand High Court

¶87

Uploaded

¶88

//2026

¶89

Acq. Appeal (SJ) No. 10 of 2014

¶90

8