2026:JHHC:15169 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 497 of 2008 [Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 04.03.2008, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 199 of 2005] Tinku Prasad, son of Baijnath Prasad, resident of Gariwanpatti, P.S. – Jharia, P.S. – Jharia, District – Dhanbad. … … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent ….. For the Appellant : Mr. H.K. Shikarwar, Amicus. For the Respondent : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P. ….. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT Reserved On : 30/04/2026 Pronounced On : 15/05/2026 1. Heard Mr. H.K. Shikarwar, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl.P.P. for the State. 2. The present Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.03.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 199 of 2005, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Section 354 of the I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. of one year. FACTUAL MATRIX 7. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 24.09.2004, at about 5:00 P.M., the victim girl was 2026:JHHC:15169 2 sitting at the door of her house and the appellant came there and gaged her mouth by one hand and dragged her towards the house of Vijay Singh and attempted to rape with her. It has been alleged that the appellant also started pressing her breast and forcibly attempted to untie her salwar, but at that time, her younger brother came there and the appellant fled away. 8. On the basis of fardbeyan of the victim girl, FIR being Jharia P.S. Case No. 335 of 2004 was registered against the appellant for the offence under Sections 342, 323, 354, 504 of the I.P.C. and after investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant under Sections 376/511 of the I.P.C. After taking cognizance of the offence, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions; where S.T. No. 199 of 2005 was registered. The charge for the offence under Sections 376 / 511 of the I.P.C. were framed against the appellant and read over and explained to him, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 9. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined altogether 07 witnesses and also adduced following documentary evidence:- Exhibit-1 : Signature of Aaisa Khatton on Fardbeyan. 2026:JHHC:15169 3 Exhibit- 2 : Signature of victim girl on the fardbeyan. Exhibit-3 : Fardbeyan written and signed by Jagdish Oraon, S.I. 10. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. 11. After conclusion of trial, the learned trial court, after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, has convicted and sentenced the appellant, as stated above, which is assailed in this appeal. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 354 of the I.P.C. is absolutely unwarranted under law as the factual scenario clearly depicts that the ingredients of Section 354 I.P.C. is absolutely lacking in this case. It is further submitted that there is no eye witness of the occurrence. No local independent witness has supported the case of prosecution. In order to prosecute the offender for the offence under Section 354 of the I.P.C., the prosecution has to prove that :- (a) The assault or criminal force must be on a woman; 2026:JHHC:15169 4 (b) Such assault or criminal force must have been used on the woman intending thereby to outrage her modesty; In the present case, the evidence of the victim is to be taken in total, which does not reveal that any criminal force as defined under Section 350 of I.P.C. has been used on the victim. 13. In alternative, it is submitted that it was first offence of the appellant, who was merely 22-23 years at the time of occurrence and considering the nature of offence committed by the appellant, the genesis and manner of occurrence, age, antecedent and character of the appellant, the trial court ought to have been extended the benefit of provision of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, which has been declined without recording any special reasons, to which the appellant deserves. 14. On the other hand, learned Spl.P.P. has defended the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence on merits and it is further submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is justified under law and requires no interference by way of this appeal, which is fit to be dismissed. 2026:JHHC:15169 5 15. It appears that altogether 07 witnesses were examined in this case during trial. 16. P.W.-1 Gita Devi has been declared hostile and expressed no knowledge about the occurrence. 17. P.W.-2 Sangita Devi has stated that she was not present at her home and does not know about the occurrence and declared hostile. 18. P.W.-3 is the father of the victim girl. He has stated that on 24.09.2004 at about 5-5.30 P.M. he was in his house and his daughter victim girl, aged about 14 years was sitting in the varandah, in the meantime, present appellant came there and caught hold of his daughter and took her away in the neighbouring house and attempted to commit rape with her. In the meantime, son of this witness, aged about 10 years saw the occurrence and raised alarm, then accused fled away leaving his daughter. He went to the house of the accused and complained to his parents, but they scolded them, then he returned to his home and the case was lodged by his daughter victim girl. In his cross-examination, this witness clearly admits that he is not eye-witness of the occurrence, rather he simply saw the accused was fleeing away 2026:JHHC:15169 6 from the place of occurrence and he came to know about the incident from his son, aged about 10 years. 19. P.W.-4 is the brother of the victim girl. He has stated that he heard hulla at about 5 P.M. on 24.04.2004 coming from the house of his neighbour Vijay Singh. He went there and saw that accused has caught hold of his sister and untied her wearing cloths, lying down on the earth. His sister was weeping and raising alarm, then he immediately returned to his home and informed to his parents, then accused fled away. In his cross-examination, this witness admits that he along with his parents live in a rented house and their native place of residence is in Kolkata. He also admits that since 5-6 years his family resides in rented house of the accused. He also admits that prior to occurrence, the accused has not been attempted to misbehave his sister at any point of time. He has denied the suggestion of defence that since his parents were residing in the rented house of the accused and there was dispute of arrears of rent, hence, they have lodged this falsecase to avoid their liability from paying the rent. 20. P.W.-5 Aisa Khatoon is also a hearsay witness, who heard the screams of victim and thereafter asked her 2026:JHHC:15169 7 about the incident and it was disclosed to her that the accused has attempted to commit rape with her. She has also signed over the fardbeyan of the victim marked Exhibit-1. 21. P.W.-6 is the victim girl-cum-informant of the case. According to her evidence, she has proved her signature on the fardbeyan as Exhibit-2. She further states that on the date of occurrence at about 5:00 P.M., she was residing in the maternal grandfather’s house of the accused. She was sitting in front of her rented house, meanwhile accused came there, caught hold of her hand gaged her mouth and dragged her towards neighbouring house of his fuwa, where the accused touched her breast and untied her salwar, in the meantime, her younger brother came there, then accused fled away. In her cross-examination, she also states that when her parents complained to the parents of the accused about the incident, then they assaulted to his father, scolded and ousted from their house. She has denied the suggestion of defence that there was dispute of rent, therefore, she has lodged this false case at the instance of her father. 22. P.W.-7 A.S.I. Jagdish Oraon, I.O. of this case. According to his evidence, he went to the place of 2026:JHHC:15169 8 occurrence on the basis of confidential information. The place of occurrence is brick made rooms roofed by asbestos comprising of 04 rooms and one verandah. Out of 04 rooms, 03 rooms have been let out on rent. One room is let out to Vijay Singh, in which the accused dragged the victim and indecently assaulted her and also assaulted to her parents when they protested and complained about the matter. He has recorded the statement of neighbourers of both the parties namely, Sangita Devi (P.W.-2), Sita Devi, Shankar Kumar Gupta, Aisa Khatoon (P.W.5) etc. He has also recorded the statement of accused. He has proved the fardbeyan of informant as Exhibit-3. After having sufficient evidence, he has submitted charge sheet for the offence under Sections 376 / 511 of the I.P.C. 23. It appears that initially the FIR was instituted for the offence under Sections 376 / 511 of the I.P.C. and after conclusion of trial, the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Section 354 of the I.P.C., although defence has been taken by the appellant that there was dispute of rent, which was basis for false implication, but no evidence has been brought on record by the defence to substantiate the above plea. 2026:JHHC:15169 9 24. It further transpires that the victim was also about 14 years old. The nature of occurrence also suggests indiscriminate assault in between teenagers. The victim was seen by her younger brother, then she raised alarm. The victim girl has also not undergone any medical examination. 25. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of offence committed by the appellant, the genesis and manner of occurrence, age, antecedent and character of the appellant, it is expedient in the ends of justice to extent the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the appellant instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment, for which the appellant appears to be entitled. 26. In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence to the extent that instead of undergoing substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant by learned Trial Court, the appellant is hereby directed to be released on furnishing bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 within two months from the date of this order for maintaining 2026:JHHC:15169 10 peace and be of good behavior for one year from the date of furnishing the bond. 27. If the bond is not furnished within above stipulated time, the learned Trial Court shall issue notice upon the appellant to secure his attendance for furnishing the bond. 28. In case of violation of terms and conditions of the bond, the appellant shall be called upon to receive the sentence already awarded to him. 29. Pending I.A. if any stands disposed of. 30. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the court concerned immediately for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi. Dated: 15th May, 2026. Sunil/-NAFR Uploaded On 19/05/2026