2026:JHHC:19009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.523 of 2021 --------- [Against the Judgment of conviction dated 23.11.2021 and Order of sentence dated 26.11.2021, passed by the learned A.J.C – X, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No.79 of 2019 (T.R No.88 of 2021), arising out of Lapung P.S. Case No.33 of 2018 (G.R. No.56 of 2019)] --------- Dhirju Munda, age 25 years, S/o Ginaga Munda, R/o Chalha, P.O & P.S. Lapung, Dist. Ranchi. ….. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent --------- PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR --------- For the Appellant : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, A.P.P --------- Order No.06/ Dated: 30 th June, 2026 1. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Fahad Allam, learned counsel for the State. 2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 23.11.2021 and order of sentence dated 26.11.2021, passed by the learned A.J.C.-X, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No.79 of 2019, arising out of Lapung P.S. Case No.33 of 2018, corresponding to G.R No.56 of 2019, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 376(1) and 417 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine years with fine of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with a default clause for the offence under Section 376(1) IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year - 1 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.523 of 2021 2026:JHHC:19009 for the offence under Section 417 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is based on the written application (Ext.1) of the informant/ victim (P.W.-1), stating therein that the accused is the resident of village – Chalah, P.S. Lapung, District – Ranchi. On getting acquainted with Dhirju Munda (accused-appellant), he established physical relationship with the informant/ victim for the first time on 14.10.2017 on the pretext of performing marriage. Thereafter, physical relationship was continued. When she became pregnant and told the accused for marrying, then he used to beat and threaten her and administered medicine for abortion, which led to abortion of unborn child. Further, on 16.10.2018, she narrated about her pregnancy to the accused and told him for marrying, upon this he kicked on her abdomen, as a result, abortion was caused. On the basis of above information of the informant, Lapung P.S Case No.33 of 2018 has been registered under Sections 376/ 313/ 417 IPC, against the accused-appellant. The police, after completing the investigation, has submitted the charge-sheet under Sections 376/ 313/ 417 IPC and the trial court has framed the charge on 08.03.2019 under Sections 376/ 417/ 313 IPC. Thereafter, the case has committed to the court of Sessions to which the appellant has pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried and accordingly, the trial has commenced. - 2 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.523 of 2021 2026:JHHC:19009 4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined altogether 07 witnesses and their depositions, in short, are as follows:- 5. P.W.-1, xxxxxx, is the informant -cum- victim and she has supported the prosecution story. She has stated that on number of occasions, accused has established physical relationship with her forcibly, as a result of which, she became pregnant and after administering medicine, abortion caused twice. On a occasion, the accused kicked on her abdomen due to which abortion caused. On refusal of marriage, she lodged the case. In cross-examination, she has stated that she has not stated anyone about the occurrence . First time, the accused established physical relationship with her forcibly. A panchayati was held in the village as the accused used to assault her. 6. P.W.-2, Birsa Oraon, is a hearsay witness. 7. P.W.-3, Sunita Kumar, is the sister of the victim and she has supported the case. In cross-examination, she has admitted that she has no personal knowledge about the occurrence. 8. P.W.-4, Dipika Mundain, is the mother of the victim. In chief-examination, she has deposed that there was love affairs between the accused and her daughter. In cross-examination, she has admitted that she has deposed as per her daughter and she has no personal knowledge about the occurrence. - 3 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.523 of 2021 2026:JHHC:19009 9. P.W.-5, Harana Oraon, is the co-villager and a member of panchayati. He has stated that he knew the victim as well as the accused. He has deposed that in the panchayati, nothing was decided and the accused refused to marry the victim. In cross-examination, he has stated that he deposed the same fact as told by the victim girl to him. The occurrence was not witnessed by him. He identified the accused because he is of the same village. 10. P.W.-6, Birendra Kumar Jha, is the investigating officer of the case. He has recorded the statement of the victim and other witnesses and submitted the charge-sheet. In cross-examination, he has admitted that he did not inspect the place of occurrence, as the same was locked. He did not find anyone at the place of occurrence so he did not record the statement of anyone. He has further stated that he has not seized the cloth of the victim or accused as the occurrence took place long ago. He has deposed that he has also not recorded the statement of any member of the panchayati. 11. P.W.-7, Dr. Vibha Rani, is the doctor, who has examined the victim and found no external injury on the person of the victim. She has opined that there is no recent evidence of sexual assault or intercourse. She has categorically stated in her deposition that no sign of rape was found on the person of the victim. In cross-examination, she has admitted that there was - 4 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.523 of 2021 2026:JHHC:19009 no any evidence of abortion neither the victim was menstruating. 12. On consideration of above materials on record, the trial Court has found the appellant guilty for the offence under Sections 376(1) and 417 IPC and sentenced him, as stated above. He has been acquitted from the charge of Section 313 IPC. 13. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant, while referring to the above deposition of the witnesses, has submitted that :- (i) except the statement of P.W.-1, no material is available on record for convicting the appellant for the offence under Sections 376(1)/ 417 IPC. (ii) both the parties have been found major. (iii) even as per the deposition of the informant -cum- victim, the sexual relationship was consensual and her statement that several times abortion was done, has neither been corroborated by the medical evidence nor oral evidence is available on record. (iv) as per the evidence, a panchayati was held and on denial of marriage, the present case has been lodged. (v) the F.I.R has been lodged after much delay. (vi) it has also been stated by the victim that establishing physical relationship by force has - 5 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.523 of 2021 2026:JHHC:19009 been disclosed firstly in the court and not earlier. Thus, the victim girl has kept on changing her version before the police, during panchayati as well as in the court. (vii) except the bald statement of the victim, there is nothing on record to suggest that physical relationship has been established. On the above basis, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the judgment of conviction under Section 376 (1) IPC taking aid of Section 417 IPC is bad in law and as such, prayer has been made that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence be quashed and set aside and the appellant be acquitted. 15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence and it has been submitted that the victim has clearly stated that the physical relationship has been established by the accused on the false pretext of marriage and this is sufficient for conviction of the appellant under Sections 376(1) and 417 IPC. 16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, it appears that :- (a) except the statement of the victim, no other material is available on record. (b) the statement of the victim does not get corroboration from medical evidence or other witnesses. - 6 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.523 of 2021 2026:JHHC:19009 (c) the victim has changed her version before the police, during panchayati and in the court. Thus, sustaining the conviction on the sole statement of the victim girl is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. (d) the victim has clearly stated that the accused used to assault her and further, there was several times abortion, but nothing corroborative material has come on record, suggesting such allegation. (e) the other witnesses, who are close relatives to the victim, have clearly stated that what ever they have deposed, have deposed as per the statement of the victim and no independent statement has come. 17. In view of above discussions, this Court finds that conviction of the appellant under Sections 376(1)/ 417 IPC on the sole statement of the victim girl is not acceptable. Accordingly, judgment of conviction dated 23.11.2021 and order of sentence dated 26.11.2021, passed by the learned A.J.C.-X, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No.79 of 2019, arising out of Lapung P.S. Case No.33 of 2018, corresponding to G.R No.56 of 2019 is, hereby, quashed and set aside. 18. In the result, the appeal stands allowed and accordingly disposed of. 19. The appellant is on bail, hence, he is discharged from the liability of bail bond. - 7 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.523 of 2021 2026:JHHC:19009 20. 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 30th June, 2026 Ravi-Chandan/- NAFR Uploaded on 01.07.2026 - 8 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.523 of 2021