2026:JHHC:16242 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.87 of 2019 --------- [Against the Judgment of conviction dated 09.01.2019 and Order of sentence dated 11.01.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – II, Latehar, in Sessions Trial No.192 of 2013, arising out of Chandwa P.S. Case No.111 of 2013 (G.R. No.449 of 2013)] --------- Ajit Singh @ Pintu Singh aged about 36 years son of Late Mail Singh, resident of Village – Devi Mandap, Chandwa, P.O & P.S. - Chandwa, District - Latehar. ….. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent --------- PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR --------- For the Appellant : Mr. J. S. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Praful Jojo, A.P.P For the Informant : Mr. Vijay Kr. Sharma, Advocate --------- Order No.13/ Dated: 08 th June, 2026 1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Praful Jojo, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the informant. 2. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 09.01.2019 and order of sentence dated 11.01.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – II, Latehar, in Sessions Trial No.192 of 2013, arising out of Chandwa P.S. Case No.111 of 2013, corresponding to G.R No.449 of 2013, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight - 1 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.87 of 2019 2026:JHHC:16242 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) and in default of fine, further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 3. The prosecution story, in short, is based on the written information of the informant-cum-victim, stating therein that she used to live in the house of Arjun Sao on rent and was engaged in the work of Beautician and sewing. Ajit Singh @ Pintu Singh lives in his house by the side of her quarter. He used to come in her quarter and they got friendship to each other. He used to sexually exploit her for three years and during that period, she became pregnant four times. He got aborted her pregnancy and on making protest, he used to assault her. When the marriage of Ajit Singh was fixed with another girl, he asked him why he is marrying to another girl while you have promised me for marriage. On this protest, he assaulted her and refused to marry her and threatened her to kill if she complains to anybody. Due to fear, she did not complain to police. On 10.7.13 at about 6 A.M., he came and ousted her after assaulting her from the quarter and also locked her quarter. He finally refused to marry and threatened to kill her. He is veteran and she has feared that he can cause any incident with her. On the basis of above information of the informant, Chandwa P.S Case No.111 of 2013 dated 10.07.2013 has been registered under Sections 376/ 313 IPC, against the accused-appellant and the police, after completing the - 2 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.87 of 2019 2026:JHHC:16242 investigation, has submitted the charge-sheet under Section 376(1) IPC and the trial court has framed the charge on 30.03.2015 under Section 376(1) IPC. 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 04 witnesses and their depositions, in short, are as follows:- 5. P.W.-1, xxxxxx, is the informant-cum-victim herself. In her examination-in-chief, she has deposed that the accused-appellant has committed rape on false pretext of marriage. She has become pregnant four times and the accused-appellant forcibly aborted her pregnancy by giving medicine. She has protested the act to which the accused promised to marry her after the marriage of his elder brother. But he married to another girl. In cross-examination, she has admitted that prior to the incident, she was married to another person namely, Shivam. 6. P.W.-2, Muneshwar Vishwakarma, is the father of the victim -cum- informant. He has supported the prosecution story. He has stated that he had caught his daughter with the accused-appellant in a compromising position. He has admitted that the accused had given medicine to her daughter for abortion of the pregnancy. - 3 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.87 of 2019 2026:JHHC:16242 In cross-examination, he has deposed that his daughter was married, but she has left her husband, as he was a drunkard. He has also stated that no divorce case has been filed. 7. P.W.-3, Dr. Marsha Toppo, is the doctor and he has examined the victim. He has opined that the victim was habituated to sexual intercourse. He has assessed the age of the victim more than 20 years. 8. P.W.-4, Fulwa Devi, is the mother of the victim and she has supported the prosecution story. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that her daughter told her that the accused has committed rape upon her by inducing her. She has stated that her daughter is an independent lady and maintains her expenses by working as a Beautician and work of sewing. 9. On consideration of above materials on record, the trial Court has found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 376(1) IPC and sentenced him, as stated above. 10. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant while referring to the deposition of the aforesaid witnesses, available on record, has submitted that :- (i) as per the statement of the witnesses, the victim was already married and the P.W.-2, who is the father of the victim, has admitted in his - 4 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.87 of 2019 2026:JHHC:16242 deposition that no divorce case has been filed. Merely they were living separately, and as such the allegation of false pretext of marriage is not available with the victim especially, in view of the fact that the victim was well capable and as per her deposition, she was residing and earning separately and was an independent lady. (ii) both the parties are major. Even, as per the allegation, it was long consensual relationship between the parties. (iii) the witnesses are not reliable as P.W.-1 has specifically stated that she has not stated about her relationship with the appellant to her parents, but the father of the victim i.e. P.W.-2 in his deposition has stated that he had once caught them in a compromising position. P.W.-2 has also stated that he had seen himself giving medicine by the appellant to the victim for the purpose of abortion. Thus, on the above basis, learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence be quashed and set aside and the appellant be acquitted. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the informant have supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence and it has been submitted that :- - 5 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.87 of 2019 2026:JHHC:16242 (i) the victim has specifically stated that she has been sexually exploited by the accused for three years on the false pretext of marriage. (ii) the victim girl has specifically stated that she was given medicine for abortion four times and this fact gets corroborated by the evidence of P.W.- 2 and P.W.-4. 13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, it appears that :- (a) even as per the allegation, there was long consensual relationship between the parties i.e. about three years. (b) both the parties are major. (c) the victim was already married and this fact has been admitted by the victim herself as well as her father also and no case for divorce was filed, rather they were living separately. (d) the allegation of false pretext of marriage is not available to the victim, as the victim was already married and further, she was an independent lady having her own source of income and she had left her first husband, as he was poor and used to drink liquor. (e) the victim is an independent lady and capable of forming her own opinion and to take decision as per her own choice. 14. In view of above discussions, this Court finds that it is - 6 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.87 of 2019 2026:JHHC:16242 clear that the allegation of establishing sexual relationship on the false pretext of marriage is not available to the victim and it is the sole ground for conviction of the appellant under Section 376(1) IPC. This Court also finds that the basic ingredient that is without consent or the consent has been obtained by playing fraud, has not been substantiated by the prosecution. 15. In that view of the matter, the Judgment of conviction dated 09.01.2019 and order of sentence dated 11.01.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – II, Latehar, in Sessions Trial No.192 of 2013, arising out of Chandwa P.S. Case No.111 of 2013 is, hereby, quashed and set aside. 16. In the result, the appeal stands allowed and accordingly disposed of. 17. The appellant is on bail, hence, he is discharged from the liability of bail bond. 18. 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 08th June, 2026 Ravi-Chandan/- NAFR Uploaded on 10.06.2026 - 7 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.87 of 2019