2026:JHHC:17823 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 401 of 2009 --------- Kople Kumar @ Kople Karmali @ Kople Kumar, Son of Late Dheram Nath Kumar, Resident of Village-Jalu Hotang, P.S.-Silli, Dist.-Ranchi (Jharkhand) … … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand …. Respondent --------- For the Appellant : Mr. Naresh Pd. Thakur, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, Spl.P.P. ---------- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT ----------- Dated: 18th June, 2026 1. Heard Mr. Naresh Pd. Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Spl.P.P. 2. Counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the State in the Court be kept on record. 3. Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 27.05.2008 and 29.05.2008 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court No.VII, Ranchi in S.T. No.513 of 2006 arising out of Silli P.S. Case No.32 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1316 of 2006, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offences under section 376 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation. Factual Matrix:- 4. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 19.04.2006 at about 4:00 pm, while the victim girl was grazing her she-goats in the forest 2026:JHHC:17823 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.401 of 2009 2 area, the accused, Kople Kumar @ Kople Kumar came there along with his she-goats and finding the victim girl alone, he forcibly dragged her inside the forest area and committed rape with her. Thereafter, the accused fled away from there. The victim girl informed the above incident to her parents on the same day at 6:00 pm, after that the victim’s parents informed the matter to the villagers, thereafter, the villagers tried to apprehend the accused but he succeeded in fleeing away. 5. On the basis of fardbayan of the informant, Silli P.S. Case No.32 of 2006 was instituted for the offences under sections 376 of IPC. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions, where S.T No.513 of 2006 was registered. The appellant has denied the charges leveled against him and claimed to be tried. 6. In course of trial altogether, 7 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution namely:- P.W.1-Victim (informant) P.W.2-Dija Mahto P.W.3-Lalo Devi P.W.4-Yogendra Mahto P.W.5-Mansu Ram Mahto P.W.6-Dr. Jyotsna Sinha P.W.7-Rajiv Ranjan (I.O.) 2026:JHHC:17823 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.401 of 2009 3 7. Apart from oral evidence the prosecution has also adduced the following documentary evidence, which are as under:- Ext.1-Signature of victim girl on fardbayan Ext.1/A-Formal FIR Ext.2- Medical Report 8. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. The case of defence is completely denial form the occurrence and plea of innocence. Submission on behalf of appellant:- 9. Learned counsel for the appellant without touching the merits of the judgment has confined his argument towards the quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant and submitted that during trial and post- conviction, the appellant has remained in custody for 3 years and 7 months, out of total imprisonment for 7 years. Considering the nature of offence committed by the appellant, he has sufficiently been punished for his guilt. The occurrence is of the year 2006. The appellant has undergone agony of trial for about more than two decades and has sufficiently been punished by undergoing half of the sentence, therefore, again sending the appellant to jail custody for remaining period of sentence would not meet the ends of justice and disproportionate to the offence committed by him. Hence, the sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the imprisonment already undergone by him. Submission on behalf of State:- 2026:JHHC:17823 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.401 of 2009 4 10. On the other hand, learned Spl.P.P. has defended the judgment of learned trial court on merits. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, he has fairly submitted that this case is stale one of the year 2006 and the appellant has sustained custody of 3 years and 7 months, hence, appropriate order may be passed in the ends of justice. Analysis, Reasons and Decision:- 11. I have considered the submission of the respective parties and also perused the impugned judgment. It appears that the victim has supported the prosecution story and has deposed that the accused has committed rape upon her for six months prior to lodging this case as a result of which she became pregnant. Thereafter, the victim was brought to Ranchi by the accused and others with a view to terminate the pregnancy but could not be done. In the medical examination of the victim girl, the presence of pregnancy of the victim girl has been confirmed by the Dr. Jyotsna Sinha (P.W.6) and she found 14-16 weeks history of Last Menstrual Period (L.M.P), three months back and has further opined about the pregnancy of the victim girl of 3-4 months. It further appears that on the basis of radiologist report, the age of the victim has been assessed as between 16-17 years. Considering the nature of offence and direct involvement of the appellant in the alleged offence, which was corroborated by the medical report as well as the victim herself, I find that there is no error in the judgment and order of 2026:JHHC:17823 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.401 of 2009 5 conviction of the appellant. Hence, the conviction for the offence under section 376 of IPC is upheld. 12. So far as the sentence of the appellant is concerned, it appears that the occurrence is of the year 2006 and since then two decades have expired and the appellant has suffered long agony of the trial and the appellant has remained in custody for 3 years and 7 months out of 7 years of the total period of imprisonment as awarded to the appellant, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellant again in jail for sustaining the rest of the imprisonment. Hence, it appears expedient, in the ends of justice to modify/alter the sentence of the appellant. 13. Accordingly, the sentence of the appellant is modified to the extent of period already undergone by him. 14. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence as stated above. 15. Appellant is on bail, hence, he is discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds. The 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 Records be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi 18/06/2026 Pappu/- N.A.F.R. Uploaded On 22 /06/2026