2026:JHHC:20742 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.640 of 2005 Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.640 of 2005 …… [Against the Judgment of conviction dated 31.05.2005 and Order of sentence dated 01.06.2005, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Jamtara in Special Case No.28 of 2002] …… Azad Mian, son of Late Yusuf Mian, resident of village Panjonia, P.S. & District Jamtara. … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Adv. Mrs. Rajni Singh, Adv. Mr. Sameer Kant, Adv. For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P. ------ P R E S E N T Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT Dated- 10.07.2026 By Court:- 1. Heard Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State. 2. Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment of conviction dated 31.05.2005 and order of sentence dated 01.06.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Jamtara in 2026:JHHC:20742 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.640 of 2005 Page | 2 Special Case No. 28 of 2002 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offences under Sections 3(xi) and 3(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 341 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for five years for each of the offences punishable under Sections 3(xi) and 3(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, R.I. for one month for the offence punishable under Section 341 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for three months for the offence punishable under Section 447 of the I.P.C. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 30.01.1998, the informant had gone to Panjania village to attend a fair. It is alleged that while she was returning home, the accused followed her, chased her, forcibly caught hold of her and took her to a nearby field, where he committed rape against her will. It is further alleged that when the informant raised alarm, the accused attempted to kill her and upon her resistance, assaulted her, causing injuries including a fracture 2026:JHHC:20742 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.640 of 2005 Page | 3 to her leg. On the basis of above written report, Jamtara P.S. Case No. 35 of 1998 was registered for the offences under Sections 341, 376, 325 of the I.P.C. and Sections 3(xi) and 3(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 4. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant for the offences under Sections 341, 325, 376 and 447 of the I.P.C. and Sections 3(xi) and 3(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and subsequently, the case was committed to the Special Court where Special Case No.28 of 2002 was registered. Charges were framed against the accused appellant which was read over and explained to him for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In the course of trial, altogether nine witnesses were examined and no documentary evidence has been adduced by the prosecution. 6. On the other hand, statement of the victim recorded 2026:JHHC:20742 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.640 of 2005 Page | 4 under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. has been adduced by defence. 7. After conclusion of trial, the appellant was held guilty for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as stated above which has been assailed in this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that P.W.2 is father-in-law of the victim and P.W.3 is husband of the victim have been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.4 and P.W.5 have also been declared hostile by the prosecution. There is no eye witness of the occurrence. It is further submitted that no offences under Sections 3(xi) and 3(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out against the appellant because no insulting or humiliating words were used against the informant in the name of his caste. It is further submitted that the genesis of occurrence itself depicts that the dispute arose between the parties due to grazing of cattle in the field of the informant victim, who belong to the tribal community. Therefore, there is strong probability that due to grazing in field of victim, some scuffle took place in which the informant was dashed and sustained injury. It is 2026:JHHC:20742 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.640 of 2005 Page | 5 submitted that doctor has not been examined. Learned trial court has miserably failed to properly appreciate the overall evidence adduced by the prosecution in its right perspective considering the core testimony of every witness and arrived at wrong conclusion about guilt of the appellant. It is further submitted that the learned Court below also failed to undertake any meaningful consideration of the materials collected during investigation. Therefore, impugned judgment is not tenable under law and fit to be set aside and this appeal may be allowed. 9. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State controverting the aforesaid arguments submitted that there is no substance in the points of arguments raised by the appellant. Learned trial court has very wisely and aptly considered the overall factual aspects of the case, which has been proved by the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment calling for any interference by way of this appeal, which is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed. 10. I have given anxious consideration to the aforesaid 2026:JHHC:20742 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.640 of 2005 Page | 6 contentions raised on behalf of both sides and also perused the impugned judgment and order along with materials available on record. 11. The only point for consideration is that as to "whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant suffer from any serious error of law calling for any interference in this appeal ?" 12. Before embarking upon adjudicating the above points, it is pertinent to take brief resume of the evidence available on record. 13. It appears that in the course of trial altogether nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution out of them P.W.2 Baburam Marandi, P.W.3 Rubilal Marandi, P.W.4 Vakil Marandi and P.W.5 Rubin Mohali was declared hostile and did not support the prosecution case. P.W.2 Baburam Marandi who is the father-in-law of the informant and was declared hostile, did not claim to have witnessed the occurrence and merely stated that after hearing the cries of the informant, he came to know that the appellant had committed the alleged occurrence. His evidence is, therefore, hearsay in nature and does not establish the ingredients of the offences in 2026:JHHC:20742 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.640 of 2005 Page | 7 question. P.W.3 Rubilal Marandi is the husband of the informant, was also declared hostile. Similar to P.W.2, he reached the place of occurrence after the incident and only narrated what the informant allegedly disclosed to him. His testimony is not substantive evidence regarding the alleged wrongful restraint, criminal trespass or offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. P.W.4 Vakil Marandi was also declared hostile, he has merely stated that he had heard from his father that the appellant had assaulted the informant and fractured her leg. His evidence is purely hearsay and does not advance the prosecution case regarding the offences for which the appellant has been convicted. P.W.5 Rubin Mohali was also declared hostile and did not support the prosecution case P.W.6 Maharani Devi has deposed that she had accompanied the informant to the village fair and on the following morning, came to know that the appellant had 2026:JHHC:20742 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.640 of 2005 Page | 8 assaulted the informant and fractured her leg. Admittedly, she had not witnessed the occurrence and her evidence is based solely on information received from others. P.W.7 Suntari Hansda is also hearsay. He stated that after returning from the village fair, she heard in the morning that the informant had sustained injuries allegedly at the hands of the appellant. P.W.8 Sarumuni Hansda has also admitted that she returned from the village fair with the informant and only heard on the following morning that the informant had lodged the case against the appellant. She is not an eyewitness to the occurrence and her testimony does not corroborate the prosecution case. P.W.9 Dependra Prasad Thakur is the Investigating Officer of the case, who was posted as the S.D.P.O. at the relevant time. He has deposed that during the course of investigation he recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses. According to him, P.W.2 Baburam Marandi, P.W.3 Rubilal Marandi, P.W.4 Wakil Marandi and P.W.5 Rubin Mohali had stated before him that the accused had outraged 2026:JHHC:20742 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.640 of 2005 Page | 9 the modesty of the victim and thereafter committed forcible rape upon her. He further stated that these witnesses had also disclosed that when the informant resisted, the accused assaulted her, causing fracture of her leg. During cross-examination, when the attention of the Investigating Officer was drawn to the fact that some of the prosecution witnesses had turned hostile before the Court, he categorically stated that those witnesses had, in their statements recorded during investigation, fully supported the prosecution case. P.W.1 Victim is the informant herself. There is major contradiction in her written report and deposition. In her written report, she has stated that there was yatra mela at Panjania on 30.01.1998. Azad Mian started following her from the fair itself and followed her to Tola (Mohalla) and suddenly, he caught hold of her and took her towards the fields and raped her forcibly. When she started shouting, he tried to kill her and broke her leg. After some time, she fainted and her husband took her home. While in her deposition before the Court, she has stated 2026:JHHC:20742 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.640 of 2005 Page | 10 that Azad Mian was roaming around the fair and offering her laddus, she told her that she would not eat them. After the fair ended, we were heading home. Her mother-in-law, father-in- law and her husband were present at home. When she returned from the fair, the door of the house was closed. She called but the door did not open. When the door did not open, she crossed the boundary wall with her little child and went into the courtyard. When we crossed the boundary wall, Azad Mian again asked us to eat laddus. Even after she arrived at the new courtyard, her husband did not open the door. As she was going back to the old courtyard, Azad Mian grabbed her and threw her down and broken her leg and raped her. When she started screaming, the family members opened the door, came to her, picked her up and took her home. She further stated that she told her in-laws and her husband about the incident. Defence has adduced the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. wherein she has stated that Azad Ansari's goat was grazing in my field. I had taken his goat at her home. While searching for the goat, he 2026:JHHC:20742 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.640 of 2005 Page | 11 reached my house and asked if his goat had come? Then we told him to give us as much fodder as the wheat she had eaten. Then a fight broke out and after that he beat me and broken my leg. Although, she has denied in her deposition that no her statement was recorded before Magistrate but taking altogether her statement, there are many contradictions in her statement. 14. From the aforesaid discussion of ocular testimony of witnesses. It appears that except the informant (P.W.1), all other witnesses of facts have derived their knowledge about the occurrence from the informant himself and have not supported the prosecution case. The contents of F.I.R., which is based upon written report of the informant (P.W.1) clearly goes to show that there is nothing abusive language used in the name of caste of the informant. None of the prosecution witnesses claimed to have witnessed the alleged wrongful restraint or criminal trespass. P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W.8, admittedly, reached the place only after the occurrence and deposed merely on the basis of what they had heard. P.W.2, 2026:JHHC:20742 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.640 of 2005 Page | 12 P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 was declared hostile and did not support the prosecution case on the material ingredients constituting the offences under Sections 341 and 447 of the IPC or Sections 3(xi) and 3(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Investigating Officer’s evidence regarding their previous statements is only corroborative and cannot be treated as substantive evidence to establish the guilt of the appellant. 15. In the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix had categorically stated that goat of the appellant grazed their based paddy crops and the prosecutrix was insisting upon compensation about the damages sustained due to grazing of paddy crops. In that course some scuffle took place and the accused appellant assaulted her causing fracture injury on her leg. It further transpires that there is no allegation at all constituting the offences under Sections 3(xi) and 3(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 16. The provisions of Sections 3(xi) and 3(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of 2026:JHHC:20742 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.640 of 2005 Page | 13 Atrocities) Act reads as under :- 3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.—(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,-- (i)-(x) …… (xi) assaults or uses force to any woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty ; (xii) being in a position to dominate the will of a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and uses that position to exploit her sexually to which she would not have otherwise agreed ; Shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine. 17. The learned Trial Court has misdirected himself towards the testimony of witnesses and has not appreciated the evidences in right perspective. 18. The judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dashrath Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2024 SCC Online SC 72 has held as under :- 9. We have gone through the FIR and the sworn testimony of the prosecutrix/complainant as extracted in the judgments of the High Court as well as that of the trial Court. The case as projected in the FIR and the sworn testimony of the prosecutrix would reveal that the prosecutrix/complainant was engaged for doing household jobs in the house of the accused appellant who tried to outrage her modesty while the prosecutrix/complainant was 2026:JHHC:20742 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.640 of 2005 Page | 14 doing the household chores. Apparently thus, even from the highest allegations of the prosecutrix, the offending act was not committed by the accused with the intention that he was doing so upon a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste. This issue was dealt with by this Court in the case of Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 3 SCC 557, wherein it was held as below:- “9. Section 3(2)(v.) of the Act provides that whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, commits any offence under the Penal Code, 1860 punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine. In the present case, there is no evidence at all to the effect that the appellant committed the offence alleged against him on the ground that the deceased is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. To attract the provisions of Section 3(2)(v.) of the Act, the sine qua non is that the victim should be a person who belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and that the offence under the Penal Code, 1860 is committed against him on the basis that such a person belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. In the absence of such ingredients, no offence under Section 3(2)(v.) of the Act arises. In that view of the matter, we think, both the trial court and the High Court missed the essence of this aspect. In these circumstances, the conviction under the aforesaid provision by the trial court as well as by the High Court ought to be set aside.” 2026:JHHC:20742 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.640 of 2005 Page | 15 (Emphasis supplied) 10. In the said judgment, this Court dealt with a case involving offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The language of Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act is pari materia as the same also provides that the offence must be committed upon a person belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes with the intention that it was being done on the ground of caste. 11. Considered in light of the above factual and legal position, we are of the opinion that the conviction of the accused appellant for the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act was otherwise also not sustainable on merits." 19. The appellant has already been acquitted from the charge under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and even not convicted under Section 354 of the I.P.C. On overall appreciation of evidences, it is evident that no insult or intimidate with an intent to humiliate the member of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is there. Therefore, his conviction for offences under Sections 3(xi) and 3(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not justified under law. 20. In view of the above, I find merits in this appeal, accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellant is, hereby, set aside and the appellant is acquitted from the charges leveled against him 2026:JHHC:20742 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.640 of 2005 Page | 16 and this appeal is allowed. 21. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. 22. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the concerned trial court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 10/07/2026 Sachin / NAFR Uploaded On: 14/07/2026