Bhuktu Hembram Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

2026:JHHC:9992

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 801 of 2025

¶4

-----

¶5

( Against the judgment of conviction dated 20.05.2025 and order of sentence dated 23.05.2025 passed in Sessions Trial No. 68 of 2021 arising out of Kowali P.S. Case No. 34 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. No. 1981 of 2020 by Mrs. Vaishaly Srivastava, District & Additional Sessions Judge-VII, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur)

¶6

Bhuktu Hembram, aged about 23 years S/o Ram Chandra Hembram R/o Asur Ghati, Mayurbhanj, PS+PO Tiring, District Mayurbhanj, Odisha

¶7

--- --- Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

1.The State of Jharkhand 2.XXXX(Victim) --- --- Respondents

¶10

For the Appellant : Ms. Tejaswi, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P.

¶11

PRESENT

¶12

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶13

J U D G M E N T

¶14

08.04.2026

¶15

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, who has appeared through JHCLSC and learned A.P.P. representing the State.

¶16

2. The present appeal has been preferred against judgment of conviction dated 20.05.2025 and order of sentence dated 23.05.2025 passed in Sessions Trial No. 68 of 2021 arising out of Kowali P.S. Case No. 34 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. No. 1981 of 2020 by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-VII, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 and 326 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year under section 323 IPC and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years with a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in

¶17

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 801 of 2025

¶18

1

¶19

2026:JHHC:9992

¶20

default of paymnent of fine, further S.I. for 1 month. All the substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 3 . The criminal law has been put into motion on lodging an F.I.R being Kowali P.S. Case No. 34 of 2020 by the informant before the Officer In-charge, Kowali Police Station, East Singhbhum on 08.08.2020.

¶21

The brief story as per the prosecution is that the informantcum-prosecutrix was in love affair with the accused Bhuktu Hembram, who had sexually exploited her since last four years. When the prosecutrix pressurized him to solemnize marriage, the accused brought her to Kashiyabeda Jungle, strangulate her with her dupatta and thrashed a stone on her head, due to which she got unconscious. The accused finding her dead, fled away. Later on the villagers, on seeing the victim lying in the forest brought her in the village and informed to her relatives about the incident and also that the accused has also taken away Rs. 50,000/-. Subsequently, Kowali P.S. Case No. 34/2020 was registered under Sections 323, 341, 325, 307, 376 & 379 of the IPC. ASI Bittu Tuddu was entrusted with the investigation.

¶22

4. The Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet being Charge Sheet No. 45 of 2020 under Section 323, 341, 325, 307, 376 & 379 of the IPC against the sole accused Bhuktu Hembram. Accordingly, cognizance was taken vide order dated 22.12.2020 in connection with G.R. No. 1981 of 2020 and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 05.02.2021.

¶23

5. Accordingly, charge under Sections under Section 341, 323, 307, 325, 379 & 376(1) of the IPC was framed on 24.03.2021 against the accused which was explained to the accused- appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded on 11.12.2024 in which the accused denied the allegations levelled upon him and claimed false

¶24

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 801 of 2025

2

2026:JHHC:9992

implication.

6. To substantiate the prosecution charge, altogether eight (8) prosecution witnesses have been examined:

¶29

I. P.W.1(Meghlal Tuddu @ Mekhlal Tuddu) – He has deposed in his examination-in-chief that the incident is of 07.08.2020 in the evening at about 6 to 7 P.M. He has stated that Kunwar Hembram came before him and asked him to accompany him to Kashiyabera as he has got information that his sister is in critical condition. Thereafter they along with Manik Lal Tudu, Kunwar Hembram and Dulal Tuddu reached at the place of occurrence and found the victim lying in an injured condition and blood was oozing from her head. After putting a bandage, she was taken to the Sadar Hospital for treatment where she informed that accusedBhauktu Hembram is responsible for her condition. He has sexually exploited her on false promise of marriage and when she pressurized him to get marry, he called her at the Kasiabera forest and during conversation strangulated her with dupatta and assaulted her with stone to which she became unconscious and finding her dead the accused fled away taking away her mobile and Rs.50,000/-. He denied to identify the accused present through V.C as he has only heard his name through the victim. In his cross examination, he has deposed that his testimony is based on hearsay facts and he has not witnessed the incident through his eyes.

¶30

II. P.W.2(Kunwar Hembram) – He has deposed in his examination-in-chief that the victim is his sister and occurrence took place between 5.30 to 7.00 P.M. on 07.08.2020. He was at his village when he got information that his sister is lying at Kasiyabera village in an injured

¶31

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 801 of 2025

¶32

3

¶33

2026:JHHC:9992

¶34

condition, then he along-with Manik Lalo Tuddu, Mekhlal Tuddu went to Kasiyabera and found his sister in an injured condition who stated him that Bhuktu Hembram is exploiting her on false promise of marriage from last four years. He called her at the forest and strangulated her as well as injured her head and fled away by taking away Rs. 50,000/- and her mobile. He took his sister to hospital for treatment thereafter to Kowali police station and lodged the case. The written application was prepared by him as instructed by his sister, wherein his sister put her LTI and he himself made his signatures upon the same. He identified the same which is marked as Ext. 1 and stated that police has taken his statement. Further he has deposed that it is true to be said that he has given his statement to the police in the manner that his sister has informed that Bhuktu Hembram is sexually exploiting her from last 4 years on false promise of marriage. Similar facts were mentioned by him in the written application. He identified the accused present through VC and stated that he saw him first time in the Kowali P.S. when he was arrested. In the cross-examination he deposed that his sister resides with him and he look after her. She used to work as a farmer and his testimonies are all hearsay facts as he did not witness the occurrence. He has firstly seen the accused Bhuktu Hembram in the Kowali Police station and today through V.C for the second time. III. P.W.3 Manik Lal Tuddu – He deposed in his examinationin-chief that on 07.08.2020 Kunwar Hembram was informed by the villagers of Kasiabera at about 6:00P.M. that his sister is Iving at the Kasiabera in an injured condition, then he along-with his son Mekhlal Tuddu, Kunwar Hembram went

¶35

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 801 of 2025

¶36

4

¶37

2026:JHHC:9992

¶38

there and found the victim was injured. She was treated by the villagers through a local doctor and thereafter went to MGM hospital where she informed that Bhuktu Hembram is exploiting her on false promise of marriage for the last 4 years. He called her at the forest, strangulated her as well as injured her head and fled away taking away Rs. 50,000/- and her mobile. He identified the accused present through V.C. In his cross-examination he deposed that he did not witness the incidence and his testimony is based on hearsay facts, though his statement was recorded by Kowali Police station on the date on which the case was lodged. He did not visited MGM hospital with the victim and saw Bhuktu Hembram first time in the police station and second time today through VC in the court.

¶39

IV. P .W.4 Victim-cum-prosecutrix - She has deposed in her examination-in-chief that she knows Bhuktu Hembram. Once he called her at his house and sexually exploited her for 4 years on the promise of marriage and whenever she asked him to marry, he always gave excuses. On 07.08.2020 he told her that he will take her to his village Asurgarhia Parsagora. She accompanied him but as they reached the Kasiabera forest he raped her, strangulated her with her dupatta and assaulted on her head with stone due to which she became unconscious. The accused, on feeling that she might have died, fled way. At about 5:00 PM. the villagers of Kasiabera took her and informed to her family, upon which her brother Kunwar Hembram came and took her to his house from where she went to Kowali Police station. On her instruction her brother prepared the written application and she put her LTI. From police station, she was sent for

¶40

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 801 of 2025

¶41

5

¶42

2026:JHHC:9992

¶43

treatment at MGM hospital where she got treated for three days. Her statement U/s 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded in court where she put her LTI. There she identified the accused present through VC. In cross-examination she deposed that she has visited police station with her brother; written application was made by her brother because she is not literate and it was read over to her. Further she has deposed that she knew the accused before the incident and they had love relationship due to which physical relationship was also established with her consent. She has visited house of Bhuktu Hembram at Jajpur before the occurrence. Police has taken her statement but she could not remember the date and time of the incident and she was not aware that accused is already married having two daughters. Further she deposed that it is true to be said that she was in love affair with Bhuktu Hembram from last four years and the physical relations made between them were completely consensual and she has filed this case because Bhuktu Hemram did not want to marry her due to same gotra.

¶44

V.

¶45

VI.

¶46

P .W.5 Baddu Murmu & P.W.6 Lakhan Kisko both have been declared hostile by the prosecution itself as they have not supported its case.

¶47

P.W.7 ASI Bittu Tuddu is the Investigating Officer of the case who has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 08.08.2020 he was posted at Kowali Police station as ASI and received the charge of investigation of this case on the direction of officer-in-charge namely Satrughan Paswan. He firstly perused statement of the victim-cum-informant, thyen visited the place of occurrence and inspected it. The place of occurrence is about 20 K.M. south east from the Kowali

¶48

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 801 of 2025

¶49

6

¶50

2026:JHHC:9992

¶51

police station. Further he recorded the re-statement of the victim-cum-informant and statements of witnesses namely Kunwar Hembram, Manik Lal Tuddu and Mekhlal Tuddu, who all supported the occurrence. He has conducted medical examination of the victim on 06.10.2020 in his presence and received the semen sample in sealed envelope from the doctor and sent it for chemical examination on 07.10.2020. He arrested the accused Bhuktu Hembram from his Sasural at village Narda on 21.10.2020 and prepared the arrest memo. He has identified his writing and signature as his own and the same is marked as Ext.P2. He received the medical examination report of the victim from MGM hospital. On 01.12.2020 he received the medical report from CHC Potka through station writer and entered it in the case diary. On 07.12.2020 he received the injury report from Sadar Hospital East Singhbhum, entered the opinion of the doctor in the case diary. On 13.12.2020 he recorded the statements of witnesses Lakhan Kisku, Bibijan Sardar, Bangu Murmu and all supported the occurrence. In his presence on 17.12.2020 statement U/s 164 CrPC of the victim has been recorded and thereafter he submitted the charge-sheet no. 45 of 2020 dt; 18.12.2020 Us 323, 341, 325, 307, 376 and 379 of IPC against named accused Bhuktu Hembram. Further he identified the endorsement of written application by the then officer-in-charge marked as Ext. P1/1. The formal FIR is marked as Ext. P3, final form in his own writing and signature along with signatures of the then officer-in-charge marked as Ext. P4. In his crossexamination he deposed that the occurrence took place on 07.08.2020 whereas F.IR was lodged on 08.08.2020 and

¶52

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 801 of 2025

¶53

7

¶54

2026:JHHC:9992

¶55

there is no explanation of that one-day delay. Further he has stated that he has not recovered any material or weapon or mud with blood from the place of occurrence regarding said assault indeed he has neither recovered any article in this case nor taken any LTI during his investigation. He has neither prepared any site map of the place of occurrence nor taken any photographs. He has firstly sent the victim with her brother for injury report on 06.10.2020 but has not mentioned this fact in the case diary and has sent the victim for medical examination after two months of the occurrence but has not mentioned the reason of delay in the case diary. After four months of the occurrence, he arranged to record the statement of victim U/s 164 Cr.P.C. from the court again but not mentioned reason of delay in the case diary. It is true that he neither recorded any statement nor confessional statement of the accused.

¶56

VII. P.W.8 Dr. Anita Samant – she has deposed in her examination-in-chief that on 06.10.2020 she was posted as Medical officer in Potka CHC. On that day by the order of M.O. in-charge Potka, she has examined the victim and found the following:

¶57

On the person of the victim :-

¶58

1.No mark of violence found on body and private parts.

¶59

2.P/V- introits admit two finger, no redness no tenderness no bleeding found.

¶60

3.Vaginal smear swab examination done on MGM Medical college Patho. Dept. Jamshedpur. The report shows no spermatozoa seen in the supplied vaginal swab smear examination.

¶61

The doctor has opined that

¶62

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 801 of 2025

¶63

8

¶64

2026:JHHC:9992

¶65

i. Sexual intercourse has taken place

¶66

ii. Estimated age of the victim is about 19 years and above.

¶67

iii. She identified the medical report prepared by her in her hand writing and it bears her signature, and marked as Ext.P5.

¶68

In cross-examination she has deposed that it is true that she has done the medical checkup of the victim after two months from filing the FIR. Whereas generally the biological evidence of such incident could be found from the body of the victim within 24 hours of the occurrence and any opinion with regard to any such incident could only be given by the doctors on the basis of condition of private part and injuries on the person of said victim that too within 24 hours otherwise it is not possible. She did not found any injury on the body of the victim while examination. She has further denied that despite not finding any injury on the body of victim after two months of the occurrence she has wrongfully mentioned her opinion that sexual intercourse has been done with the victim. During medical examination of the victim she found the hymen/ vagina found loose, thus she opined that sexual intercourse had taken place.

¶69

7. After conducting full-fledged trial, the learned Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.

¶70

8. Learned counsel for the appellant at the very outset has submitted that though the appellant has already served out his sentence, however, he is contesting the case as his conviction would cast a stigma upon him. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued the case on the following terms: -

¶71

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 801 of 2025

¶72

9

¶73

2026:JHHC:9992

¶74

(i) Referring to Section 326 IPC, it has been stated that since the weapon of crime was stone and as such, the ingredients of Section 326 IPC is not present and the conviction under the said Section is bad in law.

¶75

(ii) So far as conviction under Sections 323 and 326 of the IPC are concerned, there is no injury report rather the injury report allegedly contained in the case diary has been relied upon by the Court which is per se illegal .

¶76

(iii) For this purpose, she has referred to paragraph No.23 of the impugned judgment, which reads as under: -

¶77

23. Now come to appreciate the requirement of section 307, 325 ,379 and 341. In this regard it is further found that the medical examination or injury report of the victim has not been exhibited by the prosecution still the injury report attached with the diary at para по. 59 of CD have been perused by this court with intention to give a fair trial through which it has been found that it is clearly mentioned in para no. 59 of the C.D. that “injury no. 1 and 2 is simple, subsidiary injury-X ray report shows no any bony injury” and in the chart prepared for these injuries for injury no. 3 it is mentioned that stitched wound front side and type of injury simple. These mentions of the medical examination report are further suggesting that there is no concrete material to frame the opinion with regard to attract ingredients of section 307 or 325 of IPC, additionally in presence of the facts deposed by the I.O that he has not recovered or seized any weapon or blood stain from the said place of occurrence. So far as section 341 is concerned there is no fact at even deposed or brought by the prosecution to attract this offence. Further the offence U/s 379 of IPC is concerned as it has already discussed above that there is clear contradiction that in the F.I.R and statement recoded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the Victim there is no mention abut any theft of any article or money but it has been improvised by P.W.1, 2 and 3 but it has not been supported or corroborated by P.W.4 i.e., the proscutrix herself,

¶78

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 801 of 2025

¶79

10

¶80

2026:JHHC:9992

¶81

indeed she was the only victim and eye witness too. Therefore, there is no substantive fact or martial could b brought to attract the ingredient of section 379 of IPC against the accused.

¶82

(iv) It has further been submitted that even the evaluation of evidence suggests that there is enough contradiction and the doctor has not found any past injury on the person of the alleged victim.

¶83

9. Based on the aforesaid ground, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment is bad in law and the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charges leveled against him.

¶84

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence and also submits that the trial court has not committed any error in convicting the appellant as the prosecutrix- P.W. 4 has fully supported the prosecution version in her deposition, but she could not point out any material evidencing any injury. She has fairly admitted that the case diary relied upon for conviction is per se illegal .

¶85

11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the records, it appears that there is no injury report on record. Further, the ingredient of Sections 323 and 326 IPC, both are missing. The Trial Court has committed patent illegality by relying upon the case diary which is not permissible at all. So far as the statement of the victim P.W.4 who has supported the prosecution version, the same has not been accepted by the learned Trial Court and disbelieved the main allegation.

¶86

12. In view of the above discussion, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 20.05.2025 and order of sentence dated 23.05.2025 passed in Sessions Trial No. 68 of 2021 arising out of Kowali P.S. Case No. 34 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. No. 1981 of 2020 by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-VII, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur is hereby, quashed and set-aside.

¶87

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 801 of 2025

¶88

11

¶89

2026:JHHC:9992

¶90

13. Since the appellant has already served out the sentence, there is no need of passing any further order. In the result, the present Criminal Appeal stands allowed and accordingly disposed of.

¶91

14. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this judgment.

¶92

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶93

Dated 8^th April 2026 A. Mohanty/Raja Jharkhand High Court

¶94

Uploaded /_/2026

¶95

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 801 of 2025

¶96

12

Bhuktu Hembram v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhuktu Hembram v. the 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarjit Kaur Vs the State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Swapan Kumar Sinha Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner Pal Vs Rajesh Pandey And Ors.

Nitesh Kumar Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lal Babu Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shyam Sundar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand