2026:JHHC:16537 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1337 of 2007 [Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31.01.2007 and 07.02.2007, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No. 106 of 2005] -------- Shyam Gope, S/o Shiv Shankar Gope, resident of Village-Ranibanda, P.S.-Rajnagar, District-Saraikela Kharsawan ... ... Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent ----- P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Appellant : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ritwik Raj, Advocate Mr. Shubham Kumar, Advocate Mr. Karamjit S. Chhabra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Praful Jojo, A.P.P. -------- JUDGMENT C.A.V. on 04.05.2026 Pronounced on 09/06/2026 1. Heard, Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. 2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31.01.2007 and 07.02.2007, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No. 106 of 2005, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years. Factual Matrix 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal based on written complaint of father of the victim is that informant is teacher in primary school at Bari. It is alleged that on 06.12.2004, informant’s 2026:JHHC:16537 2 daughter (victim girl) aged about 14 years went to study at Rajya Samposhit Uchcha Vidhyalaya by her bicycle. She was student of class 9th. It is alleged that the victim girl did not return till the evening then informant along with other family members and friends started searching her and inquired several persons including friends and companions of her daughter. In the next day morning, informant came to know that his daughter was seen with a boy at Sonua bus stand, who has allured and induced his minor daughter and taken away with him to another place. The name of the boy was disclosed as Shyam Kudda @ Shyam Gope, resident of Ranbandha P.S. Raj Nagar. It is alleged that on previous occasion also the accused Shyam Gope tried to tease his daughter and was beaten by the informant and others. It is claimed by the informant that his minor daughter has been enticed and kidnapped by the accused Shyam Gope with assistance of Surendra Samad and Gomia Purty. 4. On the basis of above information, F.I.R. was registered for the offence under Section 366A of the I.P.C. later on offences were altered under Sections 366, 376 and 120B read with 34 of the I.P.C. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against present appellant Shyam Gope for the offence under Sections 366, 376 and 120B read with 34 of the I.P.C. continuing investigation against rest of the accused persons. After taking cognizance case was committed to the Court of Sessions where Sessions Trial No. 106 of 2005 was registered. The accused denied from charges and claimed to be tried. 5. After conclusion of trial impugned judgment and order has been 2026:JHHC:16537 3 passed which has been assailed in this appeal. Submissions on behalf of appellant: - 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued and submitted that as per medical examination report of the victim, she was 18-19 years old on the date of occurrence and due to love affairs with the appellant, she voluntarily accompanied with the appellant throughout the way and also resided with the appellant of her own accord and sweet will without any hesitation and objection. Therefore, the sexual intercourse between the victim and the appellant was consensual one. As such no offence under sections 366 and 376 of the I.P.C. is attracted in this case. The learned Trial Court on the basis of above evidence acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 366 of the I.P.C., but simply because the victim girl has stated that the sexual intercourse took place without her consent has convicted the appellant. The learned Trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the conduct of the victim and her medical examination report in proper perspective and recorded wrong finding which is liable to be set aside. 7. In the alternative it is submitted that both the victim and the appellant have settled in their life solemnizing their marriage now sending the appellant again in jail custody for sustaining the remaining period of imprisonment would serve no useful purpose in the eye of law rather ruin the life of appellant and also matrimonial equilibrium of the victim may be jeopardized. The appellant has remained in custody for about 2 years 11 months during trial and post conviction and has sufficiently been punished for his guilt. Therefore, sentence of the appellant may be reduced to the imprisonment already 2026:JHHC:16537 4 undergone instead of R.I. for 7 years as awarded by the learned Trial Court. Submissions on behalf of State: - 8. On the other hand learned A.P.P. has defended the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence on merits and submitted that the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant and there is no merit in this appeal, therefore, this appeal is fit to be dismissed. Analysis, discussions and reasons:- 9. I have gone through the record of the case along with impugned judgment in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both sides. 10. It appears that altogether 14 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution apart from documentary evidence. 11. The victim has been examined as P.W.-2. According to her evidence, on the date of occurrence, she had gone to her school by bicycle after attending the school, she was returning to her home with her friends Subhdra Purty, Birang and Shiv Dhatri in the way present appellant met her, who was acquainted with her and stated that on request of the Shyam Gope she followed him to Chakradharpur. She was very much overwhelmed that she could not decide what has to be done by her. She went along with accused at Gudribari and stayed there overnight thereafter, went to Ichapi on next day morning and remained there for two nights in the house of Ram Chandra Gagrai where she was sleeping separately in another house in the night. In the meantime, Shyam Gope has committed rape with her twice forcibly. She took Rs.900/- from the wife of Ram Chandra Gagrai and 2026:JHHC:16537 5 thereafter got seated in a bus and came back to her home with cousin brother of Ram Chandra Gagrai. She also took her bicycle and return to her home. She was also examined by Doctor Neeru Jha (P.W.-7) at Sadar Hospital and her statement was also recorded by Magistrate. In her cross-examination, certain love letters purported to be written by her were shown to her to which she has denied her writing and signature and has also denied any love affairs with the accused. There appear no material contradictions or infirmity in her testimony. The medical examination report of the victim girl (Exhibit-3) goes to show that hymen was found ruptured, the age of the victim was opined to be 18-19 years and sexual intercourse took place with her. It further transpires that P.W.-1, the mother of the victim and P.W.-3, the father of the victim girl-cum-informant of this case have fully supported the prosecution story about elopement of their daughter with the present appellant. P.W.-4-Manohar Mahato has also searched the victim when got knowledge that she has not returned to home and came to know that present appellant has taken her away. P.W.-5-Bhola Nath Hembrom is a student of the same school where the victim girl was studying. According to her, the victim girl did not return from her school rather she went along with Shyam Gope to the house of Gomiya Purti. Hectic search was made and it was found that victim girl was taken to Rani Bandh at Ichapi from where she returned after 2-3 days. P.W.-6-Rajesh Hembrom is brother of the victim girl who has also supported the prosecution story. 2026:JHHC:16537 6 P.W.-8-Ram Lochan Saran is the I.O. of the case who has conducted partial investigation of this case. P.W.-9-Vishal Kr. Srivastava Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class has recorded the statement of victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and is a formal witness. P.W.-10-S.I., Suman Anan is the second I.O. of this case who has conducted substantial part of investigation and submitted charge- sheet against the accused. P.W.-11-Gurubari Gagrai is the wife of Ram Chandra Gagrai has deposed that on the date of occurrence Shyam Gope had come to her house along with victim girl for solemnizing marriage and told that he will solemnize marriage from here and was asking Rs.1,000/- from this witness and stayed overnight for 2 days in her house. Thereafter, both went away from her house when money was not given to them. She also informed this incident to the father of the victim girl. P.W.-12-Lal Muni Gagrai is another friend of the victim girl. She has also stated that Shyam Kudda @ Shyam Gope along with a girl came to her house and after taking breakfast went away by Tata vehicle. P.W.-13-Bhim Sen Gagrai has also stated that the present appellant had come to his house along with a girl and stayed for two nights thereafter, girl was brought to Chaibasa. He has also stated that the appellant stayed in the night with the girl. P.W.-14-Ganaur Sundi is Hadiya seller at Chakradharpur has also stated that Shyam Kudda @ Shyam Gope had come to her house 2026:JHHC:16537 7 with a girl and stayed overnight and next day proceeded along with the girl. 12. From perusal of aforesaid evidence of ocular witnesses as well as medical examination report of the victim, there remains no doubt that the present appellant has taken away the victim girl from the way in returning to her home from school and kept for several days at different places and also committed rape with her against her will and without her consent. The theory of consent propounded by the appellant has no leg to stand, therefore, conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. is perfectly justified under law and requires no interference in this appeal. 13. So far sentence of the appellant is concerned, it appears that it was first offence of the appellant on the date of occurrence he was also 22-23 years old. The occurrence is of the year 2004 more than two decades has been passed, both victim and the appellant have been settled in their life after solemnizing marriage. The appellant has also remained in custody for about 3 years. Therefore, considering the overall aspects of the case age, character and antecedent of the appellant and future prospect of both victim and the appellant and also in view of reformatory theory of punishment, I am of the considered view that imprisonment already undergone by the appellant would meet the end of justice in this case. 14. In view of above discussion and reasons, the conviction of appellant for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. is upheld with modification in sentence to the extent of imprisonment already undergone. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits with 2026:JHHC:16537 8 modification in sentence as stated above. 15. Appellant is on bail, as such he is discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties are also discharged. 16. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly. 17. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court Dated 09/06/2026 Arpit/ N. A. F. R. Uploaded on 10/06/2026