2025:JHHC:32698 1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 291 of 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 291 of 2005 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.02.2005 passed in S.C. No. 60 of 1992/S.T. No. 418 of 1993 arising out of Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 171 of 1991 corresponding to G.R. Case No.325 of 1991, T.R. No. 854 of 1991 by the Court of Mr. Anil Kumar Choudhary, learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rajmahal) Sagar @ Saudagar Mandal, Son of Late Koku Mandal, resident of Sobhapur, P.S.- Rajmahal, District- Sahibganj --- --- Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent ….... For the Appellant : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ashutosh Kr. Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P. (through VC) PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR J U D G M E N T 30.10.2025 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Spl.P.P. representing the State. 2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.02.2005 passed in S.C. No. 60 of 1992/S.T. No. 418 of 1993 arising out of Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 171 of 1991 corresponding to G.R. Case No.325 of 1991, T.R. No. 854 of 1991 by the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rajmahal, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo R.I. for three months. 3. The criminal law has been put into motion on lodging an F.I.R being Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 171 of 1991 against the appellant 2025:JHHC:32698 2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 291 of 2005 making an allegation that while the victim was returning after attending the nature’s call then the appellant committed rape upon her on gun point. 4. On the basis of the investigation, the Police submitted chargesheet on 13.08.1991 against the appellant and thereafter cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 5. Accordingly, charge was framed on 19.06.2001against the appellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To substantiate the allegations altogether nine prosecution witnesses have been examined. The defence has also examined three witnesses. 7. In support of his contention, learned counsel for appellant has taken the following grounds: I. P.W.6- victim, although has stated in her cross examination that there was injury and she had taken medicine but this fact is not supported or corroborated by the medical evidence available on record marked as Ext. A. II. The victim has deposed that she along with her brother Mahabir Mandal- P.W.8 had gone to the house of Basant Pramanik, who is the Mukhiya of the village examined as P.W.5, for making complaint and on his advice the F.I.R has been lodged. However, the said P.W.5 has denied such statement in his deposition and stated that he was not even aware whether such incident has taken place or not. III. P.W.7-Nirmala Bewa, who is sister of the informant has claimed herself to be an eye witness to the incident and has stated that she had seen the appellant fleeing away from the place of occurrence. But there is no other witness to support the presence of P.W.7 at the place of 2025:JHHC:32698 3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 291 of 2005 occurrence rather the prosecution story has never introduced P.W.7 to be an eye witness to the occurrence. IV. Further, the blood stained clothes and other incriminating materials were never sent for forensic examination and not converted into evidence. V. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the only material available against the appellant is the solitary evidence of the victim, however, it is settled principle of law that on the sole evidence of the victim conviction can be sustained but the evidence must be reliable. In the present case the statement of the victim is questionable as she has disclosed about injury sustained by her but her statement is not corroborated by the medical evidence. VI. Further, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the F.IR has been lodged on the advice of the Mukhiya-P.W.5 who has denied such statement ever made by him. VII. Further, P.W.7 claimed herself to be an eyewitness but no other witnesses have supported the fact that P.W.7 was present at the place of occurrence. Thus, the prosecution has tried to implicate the appellant by making contradictory statement. Since, there is enough contradiction in the testimony of the victim which makes her statement doubtful. 8. On the strength of above discrepancies, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence must be interfered with by quashing and setting aside the same. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the trial court record, it appears that: i. Although the petticoat and other incriminating articles 2025:JHHC:32698 4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 291 of 2005 have been seized but there is no forensic examination of the said clothes. ii. Although P.W.7 introduced herself as an eye witness by stating that the appellant was seen fleeing away from the place of occurrence. But that fact does not find support from any other prosecution witness as there is no mention of her presence by any other witness. iii. The corroborative material as available against the appellant is that the victim has disclosed about the incident to her brother and sister but there is no statement by her sister in her support by stating that she was also present at the place of occurrence and seen the appellant fleeing away from the place of occurrence. iv. The investigating officer is also important so far as statement made by P.W.7 is concerned, but the said investigating officer has not been examined. v. The only material available against the appellant is the testimony of the victim but her statement is also doubtful since she has claimed to have sustain injury but the medical evidence does not support her statement. 10. It is settled principle of law that conviction can be upheld on the sole testimony of the victim but her testimony must create confidence. However, in the present case, this Court finds that the testimony of the victim does not create confidence. There is no sufficient material to uphold the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court and the learned Trial Court has erred in recording the judgment of conviction against the present appellant. 11. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.02.2005 passed in S.C. No. 60 of 1992/S.T. No. 418 of 1993 arising out of Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 171 of 1991 corresponding to G.R. Case No.325 of 1991, T.R. No. 854 of 1991 by the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rajmahal are 2025:JHHC:32698 5 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 291 of 2005 quashed and set aside. 12. Since the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond. 13. This Criminal Appeal is allowed. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Dated 30th October 2025 A. Mohanty Jharkhand High Court