Raju Rana Vs the State of Jharkhand

2026:JHHC:20262

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 680 of 2019

-----

[ Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 19.06.2019 passed in S.T. No. 93 of 2018 arising out of Palajori P.S. Case No. 04 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No. 48 of 2018, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Deoghar]

¶5

Raju Rana aged about 28 years son of Kongress Rana resident of VillagePahrudih, P.O. + P.S.- Chitra District Deoghar

¶6

--- --- Appellant Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent

¶8

For the Appellant : Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shardhu Mahto, A.P.P.

¶9

PRESENT

¶10

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶11

J U D G M E N T

¶12

By Court

¶13

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. representing the State.

¶14

2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 19.06.2019 passed in S.T. No. 93 of 2018 arising out of Palajori P.S. Case No. 04 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No. 48 of 2018, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Deoghar, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for One year with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he is further directed to undergo S.I. for 3 month.

¶15

3 . The criminal law has been put into motion on lodging of written report by the informant/ victim X recorded before Officer In-charge of Palojori Police Station on 16.01.2018.

¶16

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 680 of 2019

¶17

1

¶18

2026:JHHC:20262

¶19

In the said written report the victim-informant has stated that on 16.01.2018 at 4.30 P.M. she had gone to the Mustard field at Dakodih for collecting ‘Saag’ and her younger daughter was also accompanying her. She has further stated that in the meantime one persons came there, caught her and thrashed her in the bushes and tried to ravish her. When the informant- victim raised alarm, nearby people came there and saved her. Seeing the villager the accused person tried to flee away but he was apprehended by the villagers and on being asked he disclosed his name as Raju Rana.

¶20

4. On the basis of the above written report, the case was registered being Palojori P.S. Case No. 04 of 2018 dated 16.01.2018 under Sections 376 and 511 of the IPC against the accused.

¶21

5. On completion of investigation, the I.O has submitted chargesheet on 30.01.2018 for the offence under Sections 376 and 511 of the IPC and thereafter cognizance was taken on 26.03.2018. 6. On appearance of the accused, the charge for the offence under Section 376 and 511 of the IPC was framed on 01.08.2018 and the content of charge was explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶22

7. To substantiate the prosecution story altogether five prosecution witnesses have been examined. Their brief statements are as follows:

¶23

I. P.W.1(Victim) – She has supported the prosecution story. He has deposed that the incident happened about 7 months ago. It was 7.00 P.M. when she along with her younger daughter and Lilmuni Devi went for picking ‘Saag’ at Dakodih Mustard field. Suddenly one person came from behind and pulled her and put her on the field. He tore her clothes and tried to ravish her. She raised alarm due to which villagers came there for her rescue. Seeing them the person tried to flee away but he was apprehended by the villagers and on being asked he disclosed his name as Raju Rana. In her cross examination she has stated that at the time of

¶24

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 680 of 2019

¶25

2

¶26

2026:JHHC:20262

¶27

occurrence at 4.00 P.M. nobody was there. She has heard the name of the accused in the Police Station itself. She does not know what is written in the written report as she is not literate and she has put her thumb impression over a white paper.

¶28

II. P.W.2(Lilmuni Devi) – She has narrated the same story as narrated by the victim. In her cross examination she has stated at para 4 that she reached the place of occurrence half an hour after the incident. She has told before the Police that accused Raju Rana tried to commit rape upon the victim.

¶29

III. P.W.3(Vibhuti Bauri) – He is the husband of the victim and supported the prosecution story. He has also reiterated the story narrated by the victim. In his cross examination at para 7 he has stated that it is not the case that he was at his house when the incident happened rather he went to the place of occurrence and rescued his wife

¶30

IV. P.W.4(Mathur Bauri) – He has stated that the victim is the grand daughter of their village. He has also reiterated the testimony of the victim. In his cross examination he has stated at para 5 that neither he saw the incident nor he gave his statement before the police.

¶31

V. P.W.5(Sachidanand Singh, I.O. )- He is the investigating officer of the case. He has stated that after taking charge of the investigation he has taken restatement of the victim. At the place of occurrence, the accused was handed over to him and thereafter he arrested the accused.

¶32

8. The prosecution has also adduced documentary evidence as under:

¶33

I. Exhibit -1 – Endorsement on requisition of first information report.

¶34

II. Exhibit-2- Formal F.I.R

¶35

9. After conducting full-fledged trial, the learned Trial Court has

¶36

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 680 of 2019

¶37

3

¶38

2026:JHHC:20262

¶39

acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 376/511 IPC and convicted and sentenced the appellant under section 354 of the IPC. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant by referring to deposition of P.W.1- victim, who is the only eye witness, has stated that she has clearly that the name of the accused was taken in front of her in the police station and she has put thumb impression on blank paper. The accused has been only identified by P.W.4, who is not an eye witness. Thus, it is a case of no evidence as the victim has not identified the person who has tried to commit rape upon her.

¶40

11. Learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court but could not point out any material suggesting that the accused has been identified by any of the eye witness.

¶41

12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears from the victim did not know the accused and she came to know about the name of the accused at the police station only. The thumb impression of the victim has been taken on blank paper for F.I.R

¶42

13. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 19.06.2019 passed in S.T. No. 93 of 2018 arising out of Palajori P.S. Case No. 04 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No. 48 of 2018, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Deoghar are quashed and set aside.

¶43

14. The present criminal appeal is allowed.

¶44

15. Let the trial court record be sent to the concerned court, forthwith.

¶45

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶46

A. Mohanty Jharkhand High Court Dated 09^th July 2026

¶47

Uploaded

¶48

/_/2026