2026:JHHC:14638 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.477 of 2019 --------- [Against the Judgment of conviction dated 27.02.2019 and Order of sentence dated 28.02.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – I, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No.128 of 2015, arising out of Toklo (Chakradharpur) P.S. Case No.100 of 2014] --------- Raj Kumar Pradhan aged about 44 years son of late Dwarika Pradhan, resident of Aruwa, P.O. & P.S. Toklo, District – West Singhbhum at Chaibasa. ….. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent --------- PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR --------- For the Appellant : Mr. N. K. Sahani, Advocate Mr. G. K. Dungdung, Advocate For the State : Ms. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P --------- Order No.07/ Dated: 13 th May, 2026 1. Heard Mr. G. K. Dungdung, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned counsel for the State 2. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 27.02.2019 and order of sentence dated 28.02.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – I, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No.128 of 2015, arising out of Toklo (Chakradharpur) P.S. Case No.100 of 2014, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 376/ 417 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) with default clause for the - 1 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.477 of 2019 2026:JHHC:14638 offence under Section 376 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 417 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The criminal law has been put into motion by lodging an F.I.R being Toklo (Chakradharpur) P.S. Case No.100 of 2014 against the present appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, on the basis of the complaint petition filed by the prosecutrix on 13.09.2014 being C/1 Case No.34 of 2014 in the court of learned SDJM, Porahat at Chaibsasa. Prosecution story, in short, is based on the complaint petition of the prosecutrix (P.W.-9), wherein it has been alleged that the appellant-accused had proposed the prosecutrix for marriage and on that pretext, the prosecutrix had walked away with the above named accused from her home on 04.01.2014. But, the prosecutrix was not taken by the above named accused to his home rather she was kept in the house of one Jamuna Kui of village Moradih, where the above named accused committed rape with the prosecutrix for several times on the assurance of marriage and whenever the prosecutrix used to told the above named accused to take her to his house, he always requested for time. After elapsing of a period of about 02 months, the above named accused stopped coming to the prosecutrix and hence, the said Jamuna Kui took the prosecutrix to the house of above named accused. But on seeing the prosecutrix, the above - 2 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.477 of 2019 2026:JHHC:14638 named accused hide himself and sent his wife and daughter to face the prosecutrix. Subsequently, on the pressure of villagers, the above named accused kept the prosecutrix in his home like a servant, though the above named accused had made the prosecutrix to understood that she is the wife of above named accused and on the said pretext, he had continued having physical relationship with the prosecutrix. The wife and daughter of the accused took all the gold and silver ornaments of the prosecutrix like necklace, sikka, mangtika, baju payal and an amount of Rs.60,000/- also and whenever the prosecutrix asked them to return the said ornaments and money, they used to assault the prosecutrix with fist and blows. It has been further stated that after being frustrated by the said conduct of the accused, his wife and daughter, the prosecutrix complained all the said facts to village Munda on 05.06.2014, whereupon a panchayati was also called for. In the said panchayati, it was decided by panches that as the accused is not keeping the prosecutrix properly, the matter should be reported to the police. Thereafter, the prosecutrix went to the police station to lodge a case, but she was suggested by the police officials to go to Court and lodge a case, hence, a complaint petition was filed by the prosecutrix being C/1 Case No.34 of 2014. The police, after completing the investigation, has submitted the charge-sheet on 31.03.2015 against the present appellant under Section 376 IPC and the trial court - 3 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.477 of 2019 2026:JHHC:14638 has framed the charge on 13.06.2016 under Sections 376/ 417 IPC against the present appellant. Thereafter, the case has been committed to the court of Sessions to which the appellant has pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried and accordingly, the trial has commenced. 4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined altogether 12 witnesses and their depositions, in short, are as follows:- 5. P.W.-1, Laxman Pradhan, is the Munda of the village. He has stated that the prosecutrix is the sister-in- law of the accused. He has stated that the victim was residing with the accused in his home. In cross-examination, he has stated that the prosecutrix had never made any complaint to him individually. 6. P.W.-2, Lalit Pradhan, has attended the panchayati in which the accused was held responsible for committing misdeeds. In cross-examination, he has admitted that he cannot say that the accused has committed any misdeed or not and the victim happens to be 'Sali' of the accused. Further, the victim has not made any complaint to him individually. 7. P.W.-3, Kripa Sindu Pradhan, is the nephew of the accused. He has stated that the prosecutrix is sali of the accused. He has also attended the panchayati. In cross-examination, he deposed that he does not know the subject matter of the panchayati. - 4 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.477 of 2019 2026:JHHC:14638 8. P.W.-4, Jiten Pradhan, has identified the accused in the court. He has denied the panchyati held in the village. 9. P.W.-5, Anand Pradaha, has been declared hostile. 10. P.W.-6, Ganga Sindhu Pradhan, has supported the prosecution story. He has stated that the victim used to visit the house of the accused. In cross-examination, he deposed that he does not know anything about the incident and appeared before the court on notice. 11. P.W.-7, Sanyasi Pradahn, is the brother of the accused. He has also no knowledge about panchayati held in the matter. In cross-examination, he deposed that he does not know anything regarding the incident. 12. P.W.-8, Kailash Pradhan, is the nephew of the accused. He has deposed that the victim used to visit the house of the accused. In cross-examination, he has denied the incident. 13. P.W.-9, XXXX, is the prosecutrix and she has supported the case. She has stated that the accused told her to come with him as he has three daughters only and he has no male child. He will merry her and will give her the status of wife. She has stated that as she was not given the status of wife, she filed the complaint in the court. In cross-examination, she has deposed that she has not given any paper of ornaments and money to the police. She has given the gold and silver as well as the money to - 5 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.477 of 2019 2026:JHHC:14638 the accused on assurance that she will be kept well by the accused. 14. P.W.-10, Binod Kumar Singh, is the investigating officer of the case. He has investigated the case and recorded the statement of the victim. In cross-examination, he has deposed that both the parties were residing as husband-wife. The victim is aged about 48 years. 15. P.W.-11, Parth Sarthi Ghosh, is the Judicial Magistrate, who has proved the 164 Cr.P.C statement of the victim (Ext.-4). 16. P.W.-12, Dr. Neeru Jha, is the doctor who has examined the prosecutrix. She has not found any mark of violence on the private part of the victim. In cross-examination, she has admitted that she has not taken the statement of the victim. She further deposed that the victim is habitual to sexual intercourse. 17. On consideration of above materials on record, the trial Court has found the appellant guilty for the offence under Sections 376/ 417 IPC and sentenced him, as stated above. 18. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 19. Referring to the statement of the victim (P.W.-9), it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that :- (i) the victim is the sister-in-law (sali) of the - 6 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.477 of 2019 2026:JHHC:14638 appellant-accused and she was aware regarding the first marriage of the appellant and also the fact that from the first marriage, this appellant has been blessed with three daughters. The age of the eldest daughter is around 20 years. (ii) both the parties are major and they were in long relationship and the relationship was consensual. The allegation that it was on false pretext of marriage, is wrong as the appellant was already married and this fact was very well known to the victim, because the first wife of the appellant is the own sister of the victim. (iii) the victim has clearly stated in her deposition that she was living with the appellant as a second wife and only after maltreatment, this case has been lodged. On the above basis, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the offence under Section 376 IPC is not made out. 20. So far as offence under Section 417 IPC is concerned, the appellant has already remained in custody for about four years and six months while the maximum punishment prescribed under Section 417 IPC is one year imprisonment. 21. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. - 7 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.477 of 2019 2026:JHHC:14638 22. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, it appears that :- (a) both the parties are major. (b) the victim is the own sali (sister-in-law) of the appellant and she has remained with him as a second wife. She has herself stated that she wants to live with the appellant as a kept and only on maltreatment, the present case has been lodged. (c) the victim has also stated that a panchayati was held wherein the appellant has been pressurized to keep the victim as his second wife, but on refusal, the present case has been lodged. 23. Thus, the offence under Section 376 IPC is not made out as both the parties are major and they were in long consensual relationship and the false pretext of marriage cannot be a ground, as the factum of first marriage of the appellant was very much known to the victim. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 376 IPC is, hereby, quashed and set aside. 24. So far as the conviction of the appellant under Section 417 IPC is concerned, the valuable securities have been taken by making false promise and as such the conviction of the appellant under Section 417 IPC is, hereby, sustained. 25. Since the appellant has already remained in custody for about four years and six months, he is discharged from - 8 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.477 of 2019 2026:JHHC:14638 the liability of bail bond. 26. With above modification of the judgment of conviction, the present appeal stands disposed of. 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, the 13th May, 2026 Ravi-Chandan/- NAFR Uploaded on 18.05.2026 - 9 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.477 of 2019