Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 2246 (JHR)

Raju Oraon v. State of Jharkhand

2025-10-31

Sanjay Prasad

body2025
JUDGMENT : It also appears that the Trial Court has committed error by referring the name of father and mother of the victim girl in the evidence and hence, learned Registrar (Judicial) is directed to inform the Trial Court to remain cautious and remain careful in future as there is complete prohibition for mentioning the name of the victim and her family members at the time of recording their evidence in light of the judgment rendered in the case of Nipun Saxena and Anr. Versus Union of India reported in (2019) 2 SCC 703. 2. This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant by challenging the judgment of conviction dated 02.07.2025 and sentence dated 05.07.2025 passed in Special POCSO Case No. 154 of 2023 arising out of Argora P.S Case No. 328 of 2023 by Sri Birendra Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-IV-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Ranchi by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five (05) years and to pay the fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand). However, the appellant has been acquitted for the offences under Section 7 of the POCSO Act. 3. I.A No. 12805 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the appellant for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail during pendency of this Criminal Appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that though there is allegation of rape upon the victim girl, but no sign of rape was found by the Doctor and the learned Court below has acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 376 (AB) and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code and POCSO Act. It is submitted that PW.-5 is the mother of the victim girl and she has also admitted during her cross- examination that there was good relationship between the parties and she had not seen the occurrence. It is submitted that P.W.-1 is hearsay witness and she has not seen the occurrence. It is submitted that P.W.-4, Dr. Basudha is the doctor and she has not found any sign of rape or injury upon the victim girl. It is submitted that P.W.-1 is hearsay witness and she has not seen the occurrence. It is submitted that P.W.-4, Dr. Basudha is the doctor and she has not found any sign of rape or injury upon the victim girl. It is submitted that the appellant is in custody for around two (2) years and two (2) months and hence, the appellant may be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is direct allegation against the appellant for committing rape upon the victim girl aged around two years and three months. It is submitted that though, the Doctor has not found any sign of rape and sexual assault upon the victim girl but P.W-1 i.e. the neighbour and P.W-2 i.e. the father of victim girl have supported the prosecution case and hence, the prayer for bail of the appellant may be rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the informant, after adopting the submission of learned counsel for the State, has further submitted that there is delay of around seven (07) to eight (08) days in examining the victim girl, as the occurrence took place on 31.08.2023 and the victim girl was examined on 07.09.2023 and thus, there is possibility that the sign of rape was not found and hence, the prayer for bail of the appellant may be rejected. 7. Perused the records of this case and considered the submissions of both the sides. 8. It appears that there is direct allegation against the appellant for committing rape upon the victim girl and the blood was oozing out from her private parts and the victim girl was aged around two (02) years and three (03) months at the relevant time on the date of occurrence. 9. It appears that the statement of the victim girl was recorded on 08.09.2023 before the Chairman/Member of the Child Welfare Committee and she has fully supported the case for committing rape upon her. 9. It appears that the statement of the victim girl was recorded on 08.09.2023 before the Chairman/Member of the Child Welfare Committee and she has fully supported the case for committing rape upon her. However, it appears from the L.C.R that the victim girl was produced for her examination under Section 164 Cr.P.C on 15.09.2023 before the Court below and the learned Magistrate had tested and noted that the victim girl is very small and she is not able to understand the questions put to her and she is also not able to speak and hence, the answers are given by her mother on her behalf and mother of the victim girl has fully supported the prosecution case. 10. It also reveals that even the mother of victim girl has stated that the appellant Raju Oraon had taken her daughter without informing her to his rented house and she had heard crying of her daughter and found the door of the appellant closed. Then after much persuasion, the appellant opened the door and she took her daughter to her house and found that there was swelling in her private parts and the victim girl has not taken meal for three days as she was suffering from fever and thereafter, she was taken to hospital. 11. It also reveals that the occurrence took place on 31.08.2023 but the F.I.R was lodged on 06.09.2023 under Section 354 of the I.P.C and Section 8/12 of the POCSO Act. 12. It appears that there is direct allegation against the appellant for committing rape upon the victim girl. 13. It appears that P.W-5 i.e. the mother of the victim girl and she has fully supported the prosecution case and stated during her evidence that the appellant had taken her daughter to his house while she was cooking food and the appellant had committed rape upon her daughter and thereafter when her husband came in the night, she had taken her daughter to the hospital on the next day, but the Doctor was not available there and however, due to fear, she has not disclosed the entire facts to the Doctor on the next date. However, when her daughter recovered, then she narrated the whole story to her and then she had instituted a case on fifth day of the month. However, still the F.I.R was lodged on 06.09.2023. 14. However, when her daughter recovered, then she narrated the whole story to her and then she had instituted a case on fifth day of the month. However, still the F.I.R was lodged on 06.09.2023. 14. It appears that even though P.W-5 stated during her cross-examination that earlier the appellant was taking care of her daughter and used to play with her, however, the earlier relation may not negate the offence committed by the appellant. 15. It transpires that P.W-1 is Pinky Lakra @ Rapashree Lakra i.e. the neighbour and she had seen the appellant taking away the victim girl with him on the date of occurrence i.e. on 31.08.2023. 16. It transpires that P.W-3 is Kusumta Kerketta has supported the prosecution case and stated during her evidence that on the date of occurrence she along with the mother of the victim girl had gone to the house of the appellant and after knocking the door for about 15 to 20 minutes, the appellant opened the door and condition of the victim girl was not good and her private parts had swollen and there was redness. 17. P.W-4 is Dr. Sudha and she stated during her evidence that there was no sign of injury on her private parts and all over her body. 18. It is evident that the victim girl was examined after seven (07) days of the occurrence and hence, the sign of rape could wash out and may not be found. 19. In view of the direct ocular evidence, this Court finds that P.W-5 is the mother of the victim girl and P.W-3, Kusumta Kerketta is the neighbour and they had seen the private parts of the victim girl had swollen on the date of occurrence, while she was being taken from the house of the appellant. 20. Thus, this Court further finds that the Trial Court has committed error by acquitting the appellant under Sections 354(A), 376(AB) read with Section 511 of the I.P.C. and other provisions of the IPC, but, neither the informant nor the State has preferred any appeal. 21. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to release the appellant Raju Oraon on bail. 22. Thus, I.A No. 12805 of 2025 is, hereby, rejected. 23. 21. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to release the appellant Raju Oraon on bail. 22. Thus, I.A No. 12805 of 2025 is, hereby, rejected. 23. It appears that life of the victim girl has been spoiled by the act of the appellant and still the case had been instituted in lighter provisions of IPC i.e. Section 354 of the IPC only and POCSO Act i.e Section 8/12 of POCSO Act on the date of institution of FIR on 06.09.2023. This Court also does not appreciate the conduct of the police officials. 24. In the facts and circumstances of this Court, this Court finds that the victim girl must be rehabilitated and the District Administration should take proper care of her. 25. It is well settled that the criminal appeal is in continuation of trial and this has been observed also in the case of Deepak Rai v. State of Bihar reported in (2013) 10 SCC 421 and in the case of Ajay Kumar Ghoshal and Ors. Verses State of Bihar and Anr. reported in (2017) 12 SCC 699 26. Under the circumstances, Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi are directed to take suitable steps for rehabilitation of the victim girl for her education and also directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh) to the victim girl from the Nirbhaya Fund by way of fixed deposit in her name, which shall be kept in fixed deposit in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Assessment of the Criminal Justice System in response of Sexual Offences reported in (2020) 18 SCC 540. This compensation be paid to the victim girl, apart from the compensation granted/released by the DLSA, Ranchi in consultation with the State Officials. 27. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi for the needful and also to the learned Member Secretary, JHALSA and learned Secretary, DLSA, Ranchi for the needful and also the learned Court below. 28. 27. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi for the needful and also to the learned Member Secretary, JHALSA and learned Secretary, DLSA, Ranchi for the needful and also the learned Court below. 28. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Registrar (Judicial) to communicate the same in the learned Court below to remain cautious in future for not disclosing the name of the father and mother of the victim girl in light of the judgment rendered in the case of Nipun Saxena and Anr. Versus Union of India reported in (2019) 2 SCC 703 .