( 2026:JHHC:9655 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 592 of 2009 Pintu Choudhary @ Babua son of Ganesh Choudhary, resident of Panchmahali P.S. Chirkunda ( Kumardhubi) District Dhanbad … … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. PP. (through V.C.) --- 07/01.04.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction dated 15.05.2009 and order of sentence dated 22.05.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. 1st, Dhanbad in S.T. Case No. 424 of 2003 whereby the appellant has been held guilty for offence under Section 376/511 & 323 of IPC and has been sentenced to Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years along with fine of Rs. 1,000/- only. The appellant has been further sentenced for simple imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 323 IPC and both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 are the sisters of the informant cum victim and P.W. 3 is the informant cum victim. Further P.W. 4 is the brother-in-law of the victim and P.W. 5 is the doctor who has examined the injured in this case. The learned counsel submits that P.W. 4 is not the eye witness to the occurrence because as per his evidence when he arrived, at that point of time, fight was going on. He has also submitted that P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 are also not eye witness to the main occurrence of the incident of offence under Section 376/511 and therefore the conviction of the appellant under Section 376/511 of IPC is primarily based on the evidence of the victim cum informant P.W. 3. The learned counsel has then submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts. ( 2026:JHHC:9655 ) 2 4. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel has submitted that the incident is of the year 2003 and about twenty-three years have expired from the date of the incident and maximum punishment for the offence for which the appellant has been convicted is under Section 376 and he has been convicted for 5 years rigorous imprisonment. He submits that considering the passage of time, the sentence be modified. He has further submitted that the present offence is the 1st offence of the appellant. 5. The learned counsel for the State has joined the proceeding online and she has submitted that the evidence of the victim is sterling and she has fully supported the case. She has also submitted that evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence in as much as she suffered injury and the petitioner was apprehended on the spot in the house of the victim. She has also submitted that the other witnesses came to the place of occurrence after hearing alarm by the victim and there was fight and they also suffered injury and such injury is supported by the evidence of the doctor who was examined as P.W. 5. The learned counsel submits that so far as the conviction is concerned, the same does not call for any interference. With respect to the sentence, the learned counsel has submitted that it is for the court to take a call on the sentence. However, she has also submitted that at the relevant point of time, the minimum sentence under Section 376 IPC was 7 years and its attempt would call for a minimum sentence of 3 ½ years when seen in the light of Section 511 of IPC. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties this court finds that case was registered on the fardbeyan of the victim aged about 30 years who is a married lady. She stated that on 21.08.2003 at about 20:15 hrs. i.e. 8:15 P.M. she was cooking food in her house and in the meantime, the accused came to the house of the informant on scooter and entered the house and started molesting the informant. The accused knocked down the informant on the ground and removed her petticoat with intention to commit rape and in furtherance to that the accused also removed his pant and was about to commit rape and, in the meantime, when the informant raised alarm, his sister Sumitra Das ( 2026:JHHC:9655 ) 3 and Samoli Das came out from their rooms to rescue the informant. When the accused assaulted Sumitra Das and Samoli Das, due to which they sustained injuries. The younger brother-in-law of the victim namely Yoga Das also came running after hearing the alarm and he was also beaten by the accused by fist blow. The accused- appellant escaped from the place of occurrence on his scooter. The fardbeyan was registered for offence under Section 448/376/511/323 of IPC and ultimately the charge was also framed under the aforesaid sections. 7. At the stage of trial, the prosecution examined altogether five witnesses. P.W. 3 is the victim cum informant and P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 are the sisters of the informant, P.W. 4 is brother-in-law of the informant and P.W. 5 is the doctor who examined the injured in this case. 8. So far as P.W. 3 is concerned, she is the most important witness and the victim and has fully supported the prosecution case. She had reiterated the entire incident which was narrated in the First Information Report. She has also stated that the injured were sent to the doctor for treatment and this witness identified the accused in the court. This witness has been duly cross examined and during cross examination she admitted that the accused did not commit rape on this witness but she attempted to commit rape and upon alarm, the accused escaped from the place of the incident. She admitted that the appellant stayed in her house for about 2-3 minutes. 9. The other witnesses, P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 have supported the prosecution case in as much as they arrived at the place of occurrence upon hearing alarm of the victim and this led to quarrel and they also sustained injuries. 10. P.W. 5 is the doctor who had examined P.W. 4 and the victim P.W. 3 and P.W. 1 and 2. The injuries found by P.W. 5 in the respective injury reports is quoted as under: - “P.W. 5 Dr. Brij Bhushan Prasad Singh, who was posted as M.O. at Addl. P.H.C. Chirkunda at 22.08.2003 and on that day the P.W. 5 examined Yoga Das S/o Mohan Das at 11.15 A.M. on police requisition and found following:- ( 2026:JHHC:9655 ) 4 (1) Abrasion in the left chick. Nature of injury, simple caused by hard blunt object and the age of injury within 48 hours. The P.W. identified the signature which is marked Ext. 2. On the same day at 11:55 the P.W. also examined Prabhawati Devi and found following injuries. (1) Abrasion near left wrist joint. (2) Mild Swelling right arm. Injury simple caused by hard blunt substance and within 48 hours. P.W. identified the signature on the injury report which has been marked Ext. 2/1. On the same day at 11:45 A.M. P.W. examined the Samoli Devi and found following injury. (1) Mild swelling in the chest. Simple and caused by hard and blunt substance and within 48 hours. P.W. identified his signature on the injury report which has been marked Ext. 2/2. On the same day at 12:00 noon P.W. also examined Sumitra Devi and found following injury:- (1) Abrasion near left elbow joint. Simple caused by hard blunt substance within 48 hours. The P.W. identified his signature which has been marked Ext. 2/3.” 11. There is no doubt that apparently the witnesses P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 arrived at the place of occurrence upon hearing alarm of victim and they have stated that the accused had assaulted them. This court finds that their evidence is corroborated with the evidence of the doctor who found the aforesaid injuries on their body. This court also finds that the victim informant of the case has fully supported the prosecution case and she has been cross examined but the evidence of this witness remained intact in as much as even in her evidence in chief, she had stated that the appellant had committed the action by lifting her petticoat and by open his pant and when she raised alarm, P.Ws. 1,2 and 4 arrived at the place of occurrence and they also suffered injury and the appellant ran away from the place of occurrence. Her evidence remained intact and her evidence was also supported by the evidence of the doctor. This court has gone through the impugned judgment and finds that the learned court has considered all the evidences on record and have found that the evidence of the victim was trustworthy and ( 2026:JHHC:9655 ) 5 inspired confidence and she has successfully passed the test of cross examination and her evidence was also corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 5. However, the learned court has also recorded that the evidence was supported by the evidence of the eye witnesses P.W. 1,2 and 4 but apparently, they arrived at the place of occurrence only after the victim raised alarm. However, the entire prosecution story so far as the commission of attempt to rape is concerned, is fully established. Accordingly, this court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment of conviction of the appellant for the offence under Sections 376/511 and 323 of the IPC. 12. So far as sentence is concerned, the fact remains that the case is of the year 2003 and about 23 years have elapsed from the date of the occurrence. In such circumstance, the sentence of the appellant is modified for offence under Sections 376/511 IPC in the following manner. 13. The appellant would serve the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 3 ½ years with fine of Rs. 15,000/- to be deposited before the court within a period of six months from the date of communication of this judgment. If the fine amount is not deposited, the appellant would serve the sentence as awarded by the learned court. It is further directed that the fine amount so deposited be remitted to the victim as victim compensation on due identification. 14. This appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 15. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. 16. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 01.04.2026 Uploaded on: 28.05.2026 Binit/