( 2025:JHHC:31149 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 537 of 2007 ------ Sahindra Lohra, son of Bhula Lohra, resident of village Luthuwa Khutyari, P.S. Sisai, District Gumla ……Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand .…..Respondent ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Appellant : Mr. Vishal Srivastava, Advocate For the State : Mr. S.K Srivastava, A.P.P ------ ORAL ORDER IN COURT Order No: 06/ Dated: 22.08.2025 This Criminal appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant by challenging the judgment of conviction dated 28.02.2007 and sentence dated 09.03.2007 passed by Sri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Gumla in connection with S.T Case No. 155 of 2006 by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C and sentenced to undergo R.I for seven (07) years. 2. As per the F.I.R, the appellant is alleged to have committed rape upon the victim girl on 06.04.2006 while she was returning to her home after attending the call of nature. 3. Heard Mr. Vishal Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.K Srivastava, learned counsel for the State. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned 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 the allegation against the appellant are false concocted and the appellant has committed no offence. It ( 2025:JHHC:31149 ) 2 is submitted that the victim girl and her parents have been declared hostile by the prosecution during trial. It is submitted that this is a case of no evidence as all the prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution case except the I.O in this case. It is submitted that P.W-8 Dr. Pratibha Narayan (i.e. the Doctor) had also not seen any sign of sexual intercourse upon the victim girl at the time of medical examination and hence, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below may be set aside and this Criminal Appeal may be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interference is required from this Court. It is submitted that there is direct allegation against the appellant for committing rape upon the victim girl in the F.I.R. It is submitted that even the victim girl has supported the allegation of rape during her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that although, the victim girl has been declared hostile but she has proved the F.I.R. It is submitted that P.W-7 Mukhtar Ram (i.e. the I.O) had submitted charge sheet against the appellant. It is further submitted the learned Court below has committed no illegality in convicting the appellant and hence, judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and this Criminal Appeal may be dismissed. 6. Perused the Lower Court Records and considered the submission of both the sides. 7. It transpires that the victim girl (name not disclosed) had lodged the F.I.R against the appellant on 09.04.2006 for the occurrence taken place on 06.04.2006 for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C for committing rape upon her. ( 2025:JHHC:31149 ) 3 8. After completing the investigation, the police had submitted charge sheet against the appellant on 08.06.2006 for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C and thereafter, the learned C.J.M, Gumla had taken cognizance against the appellant on 23.06.2006 for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. 9. After supplying the police papers to the accused appellant, the charges were framed against the appellant on 15.09.2006 under Section 376 of I.P.C and to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 10. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case got examined eight (08) witnesses, who are as follows:- (i) P.W-1 is mother of victim girl (name not disclosed), (ii) P.W-2 is Pyari Devi, (iii) P.W-3 is Khailu Lohra, (iv) P.W-4 is father of victim girl (name not disclosed), (v) P.W-5 is the victim girl (name not disclosed), (vi) P.W-6 is Arjun Lohra, (vii) P.W-7 is Mukhtar Ram (i.e. the I.O), (viii) P.W-8 is Dr. Pratibha Narayan (i.e. the Doctor). 11. The prosecution in support of its case got proved the following documents as the Exhibits, which are as follows:- (i) Exhibit-1 is the signature of Manju Kumari on fardbeyan, (ii) Exhibit-2 is the signature of Manju Kumari on her beyan under Section 164 Cr.P.C, (iii) Exhibit-3 is the fardbeyan, (iv) Exhibit-4 is the entire F.I.R, (v) Exhibit-5 is the Medical Report and (vi) Exhibit-6 is the Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C of victim girl. 12. Thereafter, the appellant was examined under Section 313 ( 2025:JHHC:31149 ) 4 Cr.P.C on 15.02.2007 and to which, he denied the circumstances put forth before him. 13. However, the defence not examined any witness on behalf of the defence side. However, document was marked as Exhibit-A on behalf of the appellant. 14. Thereafter, upon hearing both the sides, the learned Court below has convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo R.I for seven (07) years merely on the ground that the victim girl had proved the signature on the F.I.R. 15. The learned Court below has also held that due to fear or likewise reasons best known to her, the victim girl had disowned her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Although, the learned Court below found that the evidence of the parents of the victim girl was not trusted and noteworthy on the ground of compromise between the parties and hence, the appreciation of prosecution witnesses is necessary. 16. So far as the prosecution witnesses is concerned, P.W-1 who is the mother of the victim girl had stated during her evidence that she is not aware of any incident of committing rape upon her daughter and she is also not aware of the age of her daughter. She also stated that police had not recorded her statement. During cross-examination, she stated that her daughter has filed compromise petition on her own. 17. Thus, the evidence of P.W-1 is not reliable as she has been declared hostile, though, she stated about filing of compromise. 18. P.W-2 is Pyari Devi who has also been declared hostile by the prosecution and stated that the police have not recorded her statement. ( 2025:JHHC:31149 ) 5 Thus, the evidence of P.W-2 is not relevant. 19. P.W-3 is Khailu Lohra, who stated during his evidence that he is not aware of any incident with the victim girl. Thus, the evidence of P.W-3 is also not reliable. 20. P.W-4 is Gandur Lohra, who is the father of the victim girl and stated during his evidence that he is not aware of any incident with his daughter as he had gone to market and the police had not recorded his statement. During cross-examination, he stated to have asked for giving evidence on receiving notice. 21. Thus, P.W-4 has been declared hostile and he has not supported the prosecution case and hence, his evidence is not reliable. 22. P.W-5 is the victim girl (name not disclosed), who stated during her evidence that no such incident of rape took place with her and the appellant is the brother in relation to his village. However, she had signed on the application given to the police which was marked as Exhibit-1. Thereafter, her statement was recorded before the Judicial Magistrate where she stated regarding commission of rape upon her by the appellant and proved her signature on the said statement marked as Exhibit-2. However, she stated that she has not given any statement before the police. During cross-examination, she stated to have not stated before the police that the appellant had caught hold of her hand and committed rape upon her. During further cross-examination by the defence side i.e. the appellant, she stated that she is not aware of the contents of the application submitted before the police station. She further stated that the appellant had not committed rape upon her. 23. Thus, the P.W-5 has also been declared hostile by the ( 2025:JHHC:31149 ) 6 prosecution case. 24. P.W-6 is Arjun Lohra, who stated during his evidence that he is not aware of any incident with the victim girl and the police have not recorded his statement. During cross-examination, he stated to have arrived for giving evidence on receiving notice. 25. Thus, P.W-6 has been declared hostile and he has not supported the prosecution case. 26. P.W-7 is Mukhtar Ram (i.e. the I.O in this case), who had proved the written application filed by the prosecutrix marked as Exhibit-3. He further proved the formal F.I.R marked as Exhibit-4. Thereafter, he had recorded the statement of prosecution witnesses namely Arjun Lohra, Gandur Lohra, Pyari Devi, Manki Devi and Khailu Lohra. Thereafter, he had recorded the statement of victim girl under Section 164 Cr.P.C on 28.04.2006. He also got victim girl examined on 10.04.2006 before the Doctor and thereafter, he had submitted charge sheet against the appellant under Section 376 of the I.P.C. During cross-examination, he stated that no incriminating article was seized from the place of occurrence. 27. P.W-8 is Dr. Pratibha Narayan (i.e. the Doctor) who had found following on her person, as follows:- (i) A girl of about 16 to 17 years and her secondary sexual characters were developed. No external injury over her body. (ii) On pelvic examination found her hymen ruptured, vagina admitted two fingers easily. Vaginal swab on microscopic examination showed no spermatozoa. X-ray pelvis shows epiphysis of iliac crest not fused. X-ray of wrist shows epiphysis of lower end of radious and ulna fused. ( 2025:JHHC:31149 ) 7 (iii) Opinion:- She was about 16 to 17 years and had sexual intercourse in past and the Doctor proved the entire medical examination report marked as Exhibit-5. 28. During cross-examination, she stated that there is no sign of recent sexual intercourse. Thus, evidence of P.W-8 did not support the prosecution case. 29. From scrutinizing the evidences of prosecution witnesses, it appears that the victim girl i.e. P.W-5 has not supported the prosecution case and even P.W-1, P.W-2, P.W-3 and P.W-4 have not supported the prosecution case. Even the Doctor i.e. P.W-8 has not seen any sign of sexual intercourse upon the victim girl. 30. In view of the submissions made above, the judgment of conviction dated 28.02.2007 and sentence dated 09.03.2007 passed by Sri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, then learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Gumla in connection with S.T Case No. 155 of 2006 is set aside and the appellant namely Sahindra Lohra is acquitted for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C and the appellant is also discharged from the liability of his bail bonds. 31. Accordingly, this Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 537 of 2007 is allowed. 32. Let the original Lower Court Records be sent to the learned Court below at once by the office. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Avinash/