2025:JHHC:32638 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 136 of 2005 [Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 18.12.2004 and 21.12.2004, respectively passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rajmahal, in Sessions Case No. 135 of 2003] -------- Rabbul Shiekh, son of Tamu Shiekh, resident of village-Chand Sahar, P.S.-Radha Nagar, District-Sahebganj ... ... Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Victim … … Respondents ----- P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Appellant : Mr. Aishwarya Prakash, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P. -------- JUDGMENT C.A.V. on 09.06.2026 Pronounced on 24/06/2026 1. Heard Mr. Aishwarya Prakash, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 18.12.2004 and 21.12.2004, respectively passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rajmahal, in Sessions Case No. 135 of 2003, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Sections 376 and 342 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and 1 year for the offence under Section 342 of the I.P.C. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently. Factual Matrix 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the prosecutrix (P.W.-4) lodged a written report before Officer-in-charge, Radhanagar 2025:JHHC:32638 2 Police Station, stating inter alia that on 11.10.2000, in the night at about 10:00 P.M., while she was sleeping along with her sister, present appellant entered into her house with a pistol, put cloths in her mouth and brought her to Akhariya Ghat and committed rape on her. Thereafter, she was left near a tube well. It is further alleged that when the prosecutrix narrated the above incident to her mother, she drove her out from the house and again she went to the house of the accused, where she was abused and assaulted by mother of the appellant and driven away from her house. Thereafter, F.I.R. was registered for the offence under Sections 452, 376, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused (appellant) for the offence under Sections 342 and 376 of the I.P.C. 4. In the course of trial, altogether 14 witnesses were examined by prosecution apart from documentary evidence. 5. The learned trial court after scrutinizing the evidence available on record held the appellant guilty and sentenced him for the offences under Sections 342 and 376 of the I.P.C. as stated above which has been assailed in this appeal. Submissions on behalf of appellant: - 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the genesis and manner of occurrence, as stated by the victim, who was twice married before the occurrence, is absolutely not believable at all. The appellant has been falsely implicated in this case only on account of some land dispute and rearing and selling of fish between the father 2025:JHHC:32638 3 of the prosecutrix and the family members of the appellant. It is further submitted that it is an admitted fact that the prosecutrix was sleeping in the night along with her sister, who is also a grown up lady. Under such circumstances, entering into house of the prosecutrix in the night at about 10:00 P.M., and taking her away threatening on the point of pistol by gagging her mouth without any hue and cry raised by the family members is absolutely impossible theory projected by the prosecutrix. Large numbers of family members were residing in the house of the prosecutrix including her father (P.W.-1). All the witnesses of facts are the family members of the prosecutrix and no independent witness has been examined to support the prosecution story. If the victim was sent to the house of the appellant and again driven from his mother to go back must have been corroborated by the local villagers. The medical examination report of the prosecutrix also does not corroborate the prosecution story regarding commission of rape with the prosecutrix. It is out and out a false case against the appellant. It is further contended that the learned Trial Court has miserably failed to properly appreciate the evidence available on record and undue weightage has been given to the evidence of prosecutrix, who is not wholly reliable witness. Therefore, corroboration from other independent source was required to rely upon her testimony. As such, conviction and sentence of the appellant is liable to be set aside and this appeal may be allowed. Submissions on behalf of State: - 7. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the 2025:JHHC:32638 4 prosecutrix has categorically proved the commission of rape with her at the hands of the present appellant, which finds corroboration from other witnesses examined by prosecution. The defence plea about false implication due to previous enmity has not been substantiated by the appellant. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the prosecutrix. The learned Trial Court after taking into consideration the overall materials available on record has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, which suffers from no illegality or irregularity calling for any interference in this appeal, which is devoid of merit and fit to be dismissed. 8. I have gone through the record of the case along with impugned judgment and order in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side. 9. The only point for consideration in this appeal is that “as to whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant suffers from any serious error of law as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant calling for any interference in this appeal?” Analysis, discussions and reasons:- 10. It appears that in order to substantiate the charges leveled against the appellant, altogether 14 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Out of them P.W.-5 Abul Sk., P.W.-6 Kalo Beba, P.W.-7 Raushan Beba, P.W.-8 Anbara Bibi, P.W.-9 Nauseda Bibi, P.W.-11 Jharnega Bibi and P.W.-12 Gafrul Hussain have been declared hostile by the prosecution or appears to be hearsay witnesses and not supported 2025:JHHC:32638 5 the prosecution story at all who happens to be local villager of the prosecutrix. The main witnesses of facts are the prosecutrix and her family members whose testimony deserves to be discussed and appreciated. P.W.4 is the prosecutrix-cum-informant of this case. According to her evidence, on the date of occurrence in the night at about 08:00 P.M., she after taking dinner was sleeping inside her house. At about 10:00 P.M., the present appellant entered into her room gagged her mouth by putting cloth and pointed pistol on her chest and dragged her towards Akhariya Ghat and boarding on a boat committed rape with her. She narrated the above incident after returning to her home to her mother and aunt, her mother scolded and assaulted her and driven out from the house. She went to the house of accused where her mother also assaulted her and driven away from her home. She went to police station and her written report was drawn and read over and explained to her then she put her right thumb impression. In her cross-examination, she does not admit any love affair with the accused. She is eldest among four brothers and two sisters. All family members are residing together in the house, which is consisting of one room and one verandah. The house of accused is also situated towards north of her house. In the family of her uncle also there are eight members and their courtyard is common. She has also admitted that she was twice married, first marriage was solemnized with one Yusuf Sk. of Village English and second marriage in Village Lakhipur, District Malda. She also admits land dispute between accused and her 2025:JHHC:32638 6 father but subsequently denies the same. She has also admitted that after lodging the case a Panchayati was held in the village wherein a compensation of Rs.75,000/- was imposed upon the accused which he did not pay then she tendered her evidence during trial. She has denied the suggestion of defence that there is dispute about rearing fishing between her father and the accused, hence, at the instance of her father she has lodged this false case manipulating a false story about commission of rape upon her. P.W.-1, Hasen Sk. @ Asen Sk. is the father of the prosecutrix. According to his evidence, on the night of occurrence his daughter (prosecutrix) was sleeping along with her younger sister in the room and this witness along with his wife was sleeping in verandah. At about 04:00 A.M., he went to purchase fish and thereafter went to sell the same and returned in the next day noon at about 02:30 P.M., then his wife told him that she has left the prosecutrix near the house of Rabbul Shiekh (appellant). While he went in search of his daughter, who was not found in the house of accused rather she was found sitting near a Peepal tree situated in Kabristan. His daughter disclosed him that accused Rabbul Shiekh on point of pistol and gagging her mouth brought to Akhariya Ghat, where she was confined for three hours and thereafter left near tube well. In his cross-examination, he admits that he has sold some land to the accused Rabbul Shiekh. He also admits his house consist of only one room and one Verandah along with courtyard. This witness admits that there is dispute about rearing fish and there are two parties in the 2025:JHHC:32638 7 village. He belongs to party of Jafar Sheikh @ Mahboob Sheikh who is Mukhiya of the village and the accused belongs to party of Obase Das. He has denied the suggestion that due to above dispute he has lodged this false case at the instance of his daughter. P.W.-2, Kohinoor Bibi is the aunt (Fufi) of the prosecutrix, admittedly she came to know about the incident in the next day morning by mother of the prosecutrix, while she was missing from her house. In her cross-examination, she admits that in the night at about 10:00 P.M., she went to the room of prosecutrix where she was not found. Admittedly, she is a hearsay witness having no personal knowledge of occurrence. P.W.-3, Hamida Bibi, is the mother of the prosecutrix, is also a hearsay witness from the prosecutix who returned in the morning and narrated the story of commission of rape with her by the present appellant. Then she went to the house of accused left her daughter and came back and went to sleep again. In her cross-examination, she states that in her presence prosecutrix was taken away by accused on the point of pistol. She has also seen commission of rape with her daughter by the accused. She along with her husband was sleeping in the verandah. She did not raise alarm due to fear of pistol. She further admits that Akhariya Ghat is situated at a distance of half kilometer from her house. There are houses of several persons in the way, but she can’t disclose their name. She also admits that when prosecutrix was being taken by the accused, 2025:JHHC:32638 8 she did not follow him towards the place of occurrence rather she stayed at her home and did not disclose the above incident to her son and husband. Rather she again went to sleep and woke up at about 08:00 A.M. She has categorically admitted in her cross-examination (para-20) that in her statement before police, she has stated that on 11.10.2000 at about 08:00 P.M. after taking dinner she was sleeping along with her husband in the Verandah of the house and her daughter (prosecutrix) was sleeping inside the room. At about 02:00 A.M. prosecutrix woke her and told that accused Rabbul Shiekh putting her in fear of pistol took towards jheel (lake) and committed rape on her. She became enraged and left her daughter (prosecutrix) to the house of accused. Her husband had gone to sell fish and returned in the noon at about 02:30 P.M. then she disclosed about the incident to him. P.W.10, Dr. Punam Sinha has examined the prosecutrix and found followings:- History of sexual intercourse two days back. On examination, she was of average build, wisdom teeth not appeared. Last menstrual period-8 days back. Marriage-3 years back. At present, no issue. No external injury anywhere on the body. Examination of private parts no injury, no discharge and no foreign hair found over the external genetalia. Internal examination Vagina admits two fingers. Hymen old rupture with irregular markings, features of previous sexual intercourse present. Vaginal swab was taken and sent to Sadar Hospital, Sahibganj for microscopic 2025:JHHC:32638 9 examination. Opinion-reserved till the report of vaginal swab comes. The doctor sent the vaginal swab of the patient for microscopic examination and received the report on 15.10.2000. As per the report, no spermatozoa, either dead or alive, were seen during microscopic examination. Opinion-as per the pathologist report, there was no evidence of sexual intercourse at that time. In her cross examination on behalf of defence, she has stated that as stated by the patient, I mentioned in my report that “sexual intercourse was two days back” it is not my finding. The patient was habituated to sexual intercourse. For about 72 hours of sexual intercourse, spermatozoa may be found alive in the vagina swab.The report of the pathologist of Sahibganj was not sent to me directly and officially through police, I received the report of the pathologist. P.W.-13, Surendra Pd. Singh is the second I.O. of this case. According to his evidence on 25.09.2001, he received charge of investigation of this case. There was a direction of D.I.G. Police to take no action in this case without his order. Thereafter, he was transferred and handed over the charge of investigation to the then Officer-in- charge. He has proved the written report of the informant as Exhibit-2, endorsement on written report as Exhibit-2/1 and formal F.I.R. as Exhibit-3. Admittedly, he has conducted no investigation in this case. P.W.-14, S.I. Pankaj Kr. Jha is the first I.O. of this case. He received the charge-sheet of investigation on 26.03.2001, since there 2025:JHHC:32638 10 was direction of D.I.G. not to investigate this case without his specific order. No investigation was conducted by him and in the meantime, he was transferred and handed over the charge of investigation to the then Officer-in-charge. Therefore, this investigating officer has also not conducted any investigation in the case and the main investigating officer who submitted charge-sheet after conclusion of investigation has not been examined in this case. 11. It appears that the learned Trial Court has not considered the evidence of prosecution in its true effect and import. The mother of the prosecutrix also manipulates a story that at the time of taking her daughter, she woke up but did not raise any alarm nor she inform to her husband due to fear of pistol also does not satisfy the conscience of an ordinary prudent man. The commission of rape with the victim, as stated by her also does not find corroboration from her medical examination report. 12. In the instant case, the victim, who was a twice married lady and fully grown up followed with the accused in condition of gagging her mouth to a distance of 500 meters, where the actual place of occurrence Akhariya Ghat is situated, appears to be highly improbable and cannot be believed by any person of ordinary prudence. The most of the witnesses who are local villagers have been turned hostile or are hearsay witnesses having no knowledge of the said occurrence. The other family members who have supported the prosecution story on hearsay basis also could not came to know about the incident in the night, although, sleeping in the same house. The prosecutrix was also 2025:JHHC:32638 11 sleeping with her younger sister aged about 15 years. It is also not clearly stated as to whether the door was closed from inside or it was opened in the night and how the accused manage his entrance into the house of prosecutrix. 13. It is settled principle of law that sole testimony of the victim, if found reliable and trustworthy, requires no corroboration and may be made basis of conviction of the accused. In the case of Krishan Kumar Malik versus State of Haryana reported in (2011) 7 SCC 130 the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:- “31. No doubt, it is true that to hold an accused guilty for commission of an offence of rape, the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient provided the same inspired confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of sterling quality. But, in the case in hand, the evidence of the prosecutrix, showing several lacunae, which have already been projected hereinabove, would go to show that her evidence does not fall in that category and cannot be relied upon to hold the appellant guilty of the said offences. 32. Indeed there are several significant variations in material facts in her Section 164 statement, Section 161 statement (Cr.P.C.), FIR and deposition in court. Thus, it was necessary to get her evidence corroborated independently, which they could have done either by examination of Ritu, her sister or Bimla Devi, who were 2025:JHHC:32638 12 present in the house at the time of her alleged abduction. The record shows that Bimla Devi though cited as a witness was not examined and later given up by the public prosecutor on the ground that she has been won over by the appellant.” 14. Therefore, in view of clinching suspicious circumstances pointed out by the witnesses, including the prosecutrix, her testimony appears to have no ring of truth. She cannot be branded as absolutely reliable witness, which is sine qua non for conviction of the accused on sole uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix. I further find that the learned Trial Court has completely ignored the glaring defects and inconsistencies appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses including the prosecutrix and in absence of any corroborative evidence on record, arrived at wrong conclusion about guilt of the appellant, which appears to be suffering from serious error of law. 15. In view of above discussions and reasons, I find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove charges leveled against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 18.12.2004 and order of sentence dated 21.12.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rajmahal, in Sessions Case No. 135 of 2003, is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted from the charges leveled against him and this appeal is allowed. 16. Appellant is on bail, as such he is discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties are also discharged. 2025:JHHC:32638 13 17. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly. 18. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court Dated 24/06/2026 Arpit/ N. A. F. R. Uploaded on 25/06/2026