2025:JHHC:33939 Page | 1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 229 of 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.229 of 2005 [Against the judgment of conviction dated 22.12.2004 and order of sentence dated 23.12.2004, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court II, Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No.216/2003, arising out of Chakradharpur (Toklo) P.S Case No. 61 of 2003, corresponding to G.R No.125 of 2003] Digambar Bankira, Son of Late Kate Bankira, resident of Village Surugura, P.S. Toklo, District Singhbhum West …. …. Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. xxxxxxxxxxxx, Village + P.O- Toklo, P.S-Toklo, District-West Singhbhum …. …. Respondents --- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Appellant : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P. (Through Video Conference) 14/Dated: 13th November, 2025 1. Heard the parties. 2. The present Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 22.12.2004 and order of sentence dated 23.12.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court II, Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No.216/2003, arising out of Chakradharpur (Toklo) P.S Case No. 61 of 2003, corresponding to G.R No.125 of 2003 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code (In short I.P.C) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C., with a fine of Rs.5000/-. In default of payment of fine, he has further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Fine amount, if realized Rs.3000- out of Rs.5,000/- may be paid to the prosecutrix as compensation. 3. The criminal law has been put into motion by lodging an F.I.R. being Chakradharpur (Toklo) P.S Case No. 61 of 2003, corresponding to G.R No.125 of 2003 against the appellant for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. 2025:JHHC:33939 Page | 2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 229 of 2005 4. The F.I.R has been lodged on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant. The brief fact of the case, is that, on 24.05.2003, the victim was returning home from Sarjomhatu Mela and then, the appellant came there on his motorcycle and she was carried by motorcycle. Accused has stopped his motorcycle near Kenkey Chowk and he took the victim in Hadia Godam situated by the side of Kenkey Chowk and committed forcible rape upon her. She was threatened dire consequences when she objected. 5. After investigation, the police has submitted the charges-sheet against the accused person under Section 376 IPC. Accordingly, cognizance has been taken and the case has been committed to the court of sessions. After charge under Section 376 IPC trial was commenced. On conclusion of the same, the appellant has been convicted under Section 376 IPC. 6. For substantiating the prosecution's story, altogether ten witnesses have been examined. P.W.1 Pagari Samad, P.W.2 Pogari Hansada, P.W.3 Haricharan Gagrai who is the Munda of village Toklo, P.W.4 Dinbandhu Purty, P.W.5 Balema Kui, P.W.6 Shiv Dayal Samad, P.W.7 Dr. Kujur, P.W.8 Fransis Topno and P.W.9 (victim) and P.W.10 Namsi. 7. P.W.1 Pagari Samad has stated in his examination-in-chief that he knows nothing about the occurrence. He was declared hostile by the prosecution. 8. P.W.2 Pogari Hansda has been tendered. 9. P.W.3 Haricharan Gagrai, who has stated in his examination-in-chief that he was a Munda of Toklo Village and this occurrence was reported by the victim. He has further stated that the victim has informed him that the appellant has committed forcibly rape upon her. 10. P.W.4 Dinbandhu Purty, has stated in his examination-in-chief that after seeing Sarjomhatu Mela, he was going to his sasural, village-Toklo. He met Namsi on the way and asked why she was standing alone. Namsi replied ‘Didi Bhi Hai’. Thereafter, he along Namsi came to Kenkey chowk. Namsi went to see her sister and informed to him that her sister was weeping. He has further stated that the victim had informed him that the appellant had committed rape upon and fled away. Thereafter, he along with the victim and Namsi went to village Toklo. The victim had informed her mother about the incident. He has further stated that she had produced petticoat at the police station and the police had prepared 2025:JHHC:33939 Page | 3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 229 of 2005 production-cum-seizure list. He has proved his signature which has already been marked as Ext.1/1. 11. P.W.5 Balema Kui, who is the mother of the victim and has stated in her examination-in-chief that Namsi and the victim went to see Sarjomhatu Mela. The victim had informed her about the occurrence. She informed her that the appellant had committed rape upon her. She has identified the accused in the dock. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she was interrogated by the police on Sunday and she had not told to police that her daughter returned home at 09:00 A.M. 12. P.W.6 Shiv Dayal Samad has been tendered. 13. P.W.7 Dr. P. Kujur, who has stated in her examination-in-chief that on 03.06.2003 she was posted at P.H.C Chakradharpur as L.M.O. On that day, at about 02:30 P.M. She examined the victim and found that there was no sign of rape. She has prepared the medical examination report of the prosecutrix and proved the same which is marked as Ext.3. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she has not mentioned in he report regarding the age of tear of hymen and opined that old tear does not indicate that the victim is in habit of sexual intercourse. 14. P.W.8 Fransis Topno is the Investigating Officer of this case, he has stated that the victim along with her mother Balema Kui, Munda Haricharan Gagrai and Dinbandhu Purty came to police station reported about the incident. He recorded restatement of the informant. He has further stated that he prepared sketch map of the P.O. He further stated that he has not sent the accused for examination. 15. P.W.9 is the prosecutrix, who has stated in her examination in chief that the appellant had committed forcibly rape upon her in Hadia Godam and threatened her to dire consequences when raised objection. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she was met with the accused in the fair. She has further stated that she was returning along with her sister namely, Namsi and brother-in-law Dinbandhu. The appellant Digambar was also coming from towards the fair. The appellant was alone on his motorcycle. She has further stated she objected, but the appellant had committed rape. 2025:JHHC:33939 Page | 4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 229 of 2005 16. P.W.10 Namsi is the sister of the victim and has stated in her examination in chief that she was coming from Sarjomhatu Mela along with her sister and Dinbandhu, brother-in-law. Then the appellant came there and carried the victim by his motorcycle and has committed rape of her sister. She identified the accused standing on the dock. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the judgment of conviction on the following grounds:- (i) The age of the victim has been shown as 12 years in the F.I.R and in her deposition, her age has been disclosed as 17 years and in the medical examination, it has come 22 years. Thus, there are discrepancies in her age. (ii) The incident is dated 24.05.2003, while the F.I.R has been lodged on 03.06.2003. The victim has stated that she has handed over the semen stained petticoat to the police station which has been sent for forensic test and as per the forensic report, human semen was present, but it has not been matched with the present appellant. (iii) The victim has also stated in her examination that she has accompanied the appellant. But in her cross-examination, she has stated that by application for force she has been taken on the motorcycle and she has not raised any alarm. 18. By referring to the above chronology of the event and depositions, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that except the testimony of the prosecutrix, no other corroborative materials is available against the appellant and further, her testimony does not get any corroboration from any other materials available on record. 19. Further, it has been submitted that the law is settled that the deposition of the prosecutrix is enough for conviction but it must get confidence in the Court. In the present case, the F.I.R has been lodged after nine days and semen stained petticoat has been kept intact and it has been handed over to the forensic laboratory, but the same has not been matched with the present appellant. There is also contradiction regarding usual course while taking her away upon the motor- cycle. Thus, the prosecutrix story is not reliable and only on that, conviction is bad in law. 2025:JHHC:33939 Page | 5 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 229 of 2005 20. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the fact that the incident is of the year 2003. He has further relied upon the point of law of i.e., Section 375 IPC which is as follows:- “375. Rape- A man is said to commit “rape” who, except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances failing under any of the six following descriptions:- First –Against her will. Secondly –With her consent, Thirdly- when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested in fear of death or of hurt. Fourthly –With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her consent is given because she belives that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married. Fifthly- With her consent, when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of ‘unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stuperfying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent. Sixthly- With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age. 21. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of conviction. It has been submitted that the prosecutrix has supported the evidence and the evidence under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which is available in form of other P.Ws, to whom the prosecutirx has disclosed regarding the commission of crime, immediately, after the incident. 22. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the records, it appears that:- (i) The incident is dated 24.05.2003, while the F.I.R has been lodged on 03.06.2003 after much delay. (ii) Keeping the semen intact is otherwise also not normal behaviour but it has been handed to the police and forensic test has also been done but the semen did not match with the appellant and thus, the forensic report does not relates with this appellant with the alleged crime. 2025:JHHC:33939 Page | 6 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 229 of 2005 (iii) The narration of the story, regarding taking away only on asking and thereafter in cross stating that force has also been applied which creates doubt regarding the veracity of the deposition of the prosecutrix. 23. Thus, this Court finds that the depositions of the prosecutrix are not reliable, rather it creates doubt. Further, there is no other corroborative materials available on record to convict the appellant with the alleged crime. 24. In view of the above discussion, the ingredient of Section 376 IPC is also lacking and as such, the conviction under Section 376 IPC is hereby, set-aside. 25. In the result, the present Criminal Appeal stands allowed. 26. Since the appellant is already on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond. 27. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this judgment. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 13thNovember, 2025 Raja- (Uploaded on 21.11.2025)