2026:JHHC:14107 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.419 of 2019 --------- [Against the Judgment of conviction dated 15.03.2019 and Order of sentence dated 19.03.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - 1st, Hazaribag in Sessions Trial No.292 of 2010, arising out of Sadar (Muffasil) P.S. Case No.295 of 2010 , corresponding to G.R No.1255 of 2010] --------- Vijay Sao, aged 41 years, S/o Late Hiraman Sao @ Barun Sao, Resident of Village – Silwar, P.S – Muffasil, P.O & District – Hazaribag. ….. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent --------- PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR --------- For the Appellant : Mr. Awnish Shankar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Naveen Kr. Ganjhu, A.P.P --------- Order No.05/ Dated: 11 th May, 2026 1. Heard Mr. Awnish Shankar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Naveen Kumar Ganjhu, learned counsel for the State. 2. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 15.03.2019 and order of sentence dated 19.03.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - 1st , Hazaribag, in Sessions Trial No.292 of 2010, arising out of Sadar (Muffasil) P.S. Case No.295 of 2010 (G.R. No.1255 of 2010), whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal code (in short IPC) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) and in default of fine, further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. - 1 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.419 of 2019 2026:JHHC:14107 3. The prosecution story, in short, is based on the written application of the informant-cum-victim, (P.W.5), alleging therein that Vijay Sao s/o Hiraman Sao @ Barun Sao of village Silwar, P.S Muffasil, District -Hazaibag is sexually exploiting her for the last three years on the false pretext of marriage and when she told to marry with her, he is refusing. Further, it has been alleged that the accused kept her in a tenanted house at Maheshra on the rent of Rs.200/- per month and used to expend on her as his wife. Further alleged that under the pressure of his parents, he refused to marry with her. On the basis of above information of the victim, Sadar (Muffasil) P.S Case No.295 of 2010 dated 23.04.2010 has been registered under Sections 376 IPC, against the accused-appellant and the police, after completing the investigation, has submitted the charge-sheet under Section 376 IPC and the trial court has framed the charge on 19.08.2010 under Sections 376 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 06 witnesses and their depositions, in short, are as follows:- 5. P.W.-1, Dr. R. S. Vandana, is the doctor who has examined the victim and proved the medical report i.e. Ext.- 1. She has assessed the age of the victim more than 20 - 2 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.419 of 2019 2026:JHHC:14107 years. No any external injury was found, hence opinion about rape cannot be given. In cross-examination, she has admitted that the victim was habitual of sexual intercourse. 6. P.W.-2, Krishna Yadav, is an independent witness in in chief, he has deposed that on refusal of marriage, the victim has filed the case. 7. P.W.-3, Kuldip Sao, is the father of the victim and he has stated in his chief examination that his daughter was aged about 16-17 years and the accused has taken her on false pretext of marriage and on refusal by the accused and his parents, the case was lodged. In cross-examination, he has admitted that his daughter was earlier married and out of the said wedlock two children was born. In para – 6, he has deposed that it is not a fact that his daughter has filed this false case and the accused has not done anything wrong. 8. P.W.-4, Khirodhar Sao, is also an independent witness. He has stated that in panchayati, the accused was directed to marry the victim, but on refusal the case was lodged by the victim. In cross-examination, at para-4, he has deposed that the informant is residing with her children at Maheshra and used to work for her livelihood. In para-5, he had deposed that police has not taken his statement. 9. P.W.-5, xxxxxx is the informant/ victim herself. She has supported the case and identified the written report (Ext.-2). - 3 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.419 of 2019 2026:JHHC:14107 In cross-examination, she has admitted that she was earlier married to one Sunil about ten years ago and out of the said wedlock two children were born. In para-3, she has deposed that she left the home of Sunil as he started making demand of dowry. In para-6, she has admitted that the accused is her mausha in distant relationship and as per statement in para-7, she went with him with the consent of her parents. 10. P.W.-6, Yadunath Singh, is the Investigating Officer of the case. He has recorded the statement of the witnesses as well as of the informant. In cross-examination, he has admitted that the written report was not filed in his presence. 11. The accused, in his defence, has brought some documentary evidence on record, which have been exhibited, which are as follows :- 1. Ext.-A – Certified copy of six depositions. 2. Ext.-B – Certified copy of order-sheets of Complaint Case No.290 of 2010. 3. Ext.-C – Certified copy of order-sheets of Maintenance Case No.47 of 2015. 4. Ext.-D – Certified copy of order-sheets dated 30.01.2009 to 07.07.2011 of MTS Case No.26 of 2009. 5. Ext.-E– Certified copy of petition of MTS No.26 of 2009. 6. Ext.-F – Certified copy of maintenance petition and objection of Maintenance Case No.47 of 2015. 7. Ext.-G – Certified copy of Complaint Case No.290 of 2010. Exts.- B to F are regarding the first marriage of the victim. 12. On consideration of above materials on record, the trial Court has found the appellant guilty for the offence - 4 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.419 of 2019 2026:JHHC:14107 under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him, as stated above. 13. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, it appears that :- (i) the victim has admitted that she is a married lady having two children from her first marriage. (ii) there was no divorce from her first husband, as has been stated by her which is also evident from Exts.- D & F. (iii) the victim and the accused have remained as wife-husband for more than three years and only on refusal of marriage by the accused, the present case has been lodged by the victim. (iv) both, the accused and the victim are major. (v) for conviction under Section 376 IPC, it is sine qua non that the physical relationship must be established without consent of the victim or the consent has been obtained by playing fraud. 15. In the present case, as per the allegation, the consent has been obtained on false pretext of marriage which cannot be justified, as she was already married having two children. The divorce petition was filed, but the same has not been culminated in divorce. They have remained as a husband and wife for a long period and their relationship was consensual and only after refusal of marriage, the present case has been filed by the victim. - 5 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.419 of 2019 2026:JHHC:14107 16. There was long consensual relationship between the parties and only since it has not been culminated into marriage, the present case has been lodged. 17. Thus, it is not a case where the consent has been obtained by playing fraud. Both the parties are major and have remained in long consensual relationship. 18. In view of above discussions, this Court finds that the basic ingredient of Section 376 IPC is missing and as such the conviction of the appellant under Section 376 IPC is not sustainable. Accordingly, the Judgment of conviction dated 15.03.2019 and order of sentence dated 19.03.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - 1st , Hazaribag, in Sessions Trial No.292 of 2010, arising out of Sadar (Muffasil) P.S. Case No.295 of 2010 (G.R. No.1255 of 2010 is, hereby, quashed and set aside. 19. In the result, the appeal stands allowed and accordingly disposed of. 20. The appellant is on bail, hence, he is discharged from the liability of bail bond. 21. 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 11th May, 2026 Ravi-Chandan/- NAFR Uploaded on 13.05.2026 - 6 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.419 of 2019