2026:JHHC:16588 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 568 of 2015 -------- Anil Kumar Choubey, S/o. Late Panchanand Choubey, R/o. Vill.- Meru, P.O.- B.S.F., P.S.- Hazaribagh, Dist.- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Opp. Party -------- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Jay Prakash Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P. C.A.V. On: 08/05/2026 Pronounced On: 09/06/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.P.P. 2. Instant Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment dated 23.04.2015 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 07 of 2008 by the learned District & Addl. Sessions Judge, Ghatsila, whereby and whereunder, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for the offence under Section 377 of the I.P.C. passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ghatsila in G.R. No. 278 of 2000 dated 20.12.2007 has been upheld and the petitioner has been directed to undergo R.I. for 3 years alongwith the fine of Rs. 8,000/- with default stipulation. Factual Matrix:- 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that on 10.07.2000, written report was lodged by one Duryodhan Bera (PW-5) aged about 15-16 years, working as servant in the hotel of Gaur Maity (PW-6) at 2 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 568 of 2015) Kerukocha stating inter alia that on 5/6th July, 2000 at about 2:30 A.M., while the informant was sleeping on a Chowki in the courtyard of the hotel, then Anil Kumar Choubey (Petitioner) came and forcibly committed carnal intercourse with him. The informant raised alarm, then the accused showing him a danda threatened to assault him and fled away. In the next morning, the victim boy informed to his master Gaur Maity (PW-6) about the said occurrence. It is further alleged that petitioner Anil Kumar Choubey has also tried to commit such type of carnal relationship earlier with one Alok Rai (PW-4) and Madhusudan Das (PW-1). 4. On the basis of written report of informant, Chakulia (Shyamsundarpur) P.S. Case No. 20 of 2000 was registered for the offence under Section 377 of the I.P.C. After conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the above named sole accused. 5. The accused (Anil Kumar Choubey) denied from the charge and claimed to be tried. After conclusion Trial, impugned judgment was passed by the learned Trial Court which has been upheld by the learned Appellate Court and has been assailed in this Revision. 6. In the course of trial, altogether, 08 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. I. P.W.-1 Madhusudan Das II. P.W.-2 Sonaram Mahato III. P.W.-3 Rabindera Nath Maity IV. P.W.-4 Alok Rai V. P.W.-5 Duryodhan Bera (Informant) 3 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 568 of 2015) VI. P.W.-6 Gourhari Maity VII. P.W.-7 Dr. Milind Kumar Singh VIII. P.W.-8 Mithlesh Kumar Apart from oral evidence, following documentary evidence has been adduced by the prosecution:- I. Exhibit- 1 Medical report II. Exhibit-2 Signature on the formal F.I.R. III. Exhibit-3 & 3/1 Forwarding and endorsement on the written report respectively. 7. On the other hand, the defence has also examined altogether 04 witnesses, namely, DW-1 Ramdinesh Tiwari, DW-2 Doman Nayak, DW-3 Kulu Bera and DW-4 Lakhan Mandi, including one Court witness namely, Shailendra Nath Maity, who have denied any occurrence committed by the petitioner rather he has falsely been implicated due to inimical terms with police personnel alongwith Officer-in-charge, who was posted at barrier duty and the accused Anil Kumar Choubey was protesting against sale of wine in the hotel situated near the barrier, hence, he was implicated in this case. 8. The learned Trial Court after scrutinizing the evidence of respective parties, held the accused (Anil Kumar Choubey) guilty for the offence under Section 377 of the I.P.C. and passed sentence of imprisonment as stated above. 9. Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, Criminal Appeal No. 07/2008 was preferred by the petitioner Anil Kumar Choubey and the same was heard and decided by the learned 4 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 568 of 2015) District & Addl. Sessions Judge, Ghatsila, whereby the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the accused was upheld. Submission on behalf of the Petitioner:- 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court has failed to consider that a concocted story was cooked up by the informant in collusion with of his employer and other inimical persons. After four days of alleged occurrence, the F.I.R. was lodged. It is further submitted that except the informant, none of the witnesses named in the F.I.R. namely Madhusudan Das (PW-1), Alok Rai (PW- 4) have supported the prosecution story, which also does not find corroboration from the injury report of the victim proved by PW-7 Dr. Milind Kumar Singh. It is further submitted that there was no eye witness to the occurrence and the victim boy did not raise any hue and cry to attract the neighboring persons at the relevant time of occurrence itself. The I.O. (investigating officer) of the case has also not been examined, which has caused serious prejudice in the defence of the petitioner. Therefore, impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the petitioner is fit to be set aside allowing this revision. Submission on behalf of the State:- 11. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and has submitted that there is concurrent finding of guilt of the petitioner who had established carnal intercourse with a tender year boy, which has been proved by the prosecution. There is no reason to take different view 5 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 568 of 2015) from the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court and this revision, being devoid of merit, is fit to be dismissed. Analysis, discussion and reasons:- 12. I have gone through the record of the case alongwith the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both the parties. 13. It appears that F.I.R. was lodged after 3-4 days and reason has been explained by the prosecution in the evidence of informant that the hotel owner was not present at that time and when he returned, then he alongwith his employer went to the police station and lodged this case. The injury on private part was also not found due to lapse of 2-3 days from the occurrence. It further appears that the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court has minutely discussed and evaluated overall testimony of the prosecution and defence witnesses while recording the findings about the guilt of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out any such glaring legal points to take a different view from the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court. It appears that reasoned decision has been passed by the learned Trial Court and the same has been upheld by the learned Appellate Court. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or infirmity calling for any interference in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court. 14. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision is dismissed. 15. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. 6 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 568 of 2015) 16. Let a copy of this order be sent through FAX to the concerned Trial Court for information and needful. 17. Let the trial court records also be sent back to the concerned Trial Court. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 09/06/2026 Rahul/NAFR Uploaded on 10/06/2026