2026:JHHC:21526 IN THE HIGH COURT OFJHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 362 of 2009 --------- [Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.04.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in S.T. No. 66 of 2008 arising out of Tundi P.S. Case No. 92 of 2007 corresponding to G.R. No. 3446 of 2007] --------- Daru Bawri, Son of Khetu Bawri, Resident of Barwatand, P.S.- Tundi, District- Dhanbad. ……Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand …. Respondent --------- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA --------- For the Appellant : Mrs. Jasvinder Mazumdar, Advocate : Mr. Ankit Jaiswal, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. S. K. Srivastava, A.P.P. ----------- JUDGMENT CAV On: 24th June, 2026 Pronounced On: 20/07/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. 2. Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 09.04.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in S.T. Case No. 66 of 2008 arising out of Tundi P.S. Case No. 92 of 2007 corresponding to G.R. No. 3446 of 2007, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years alongwith the fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation. Factual Matrix:- 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 09.11.2007 at about 6:00 P.M., the prosecutrix had gone to attend nature's call at nearby pond of her village. It is alleged that on the way, the present appellant caught hold of the prosecutrix finding her alone, gaged her mouth by his gamcha and committed rape on her. Anyhow, the 2026:JHHC:21526 2 | P a g e prosecutrix escaped from his clutches and came to her home and complained about the said incident to her family members and lodged F.I.R. against him. 4. On the basis of written report of the informant, F.I.R. being Tundi P.S. Case No. 92 of 2007 was registered for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. 5. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the present appellant and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions, where S.T No. 66 of 2008 was registered. 6. The appellant has denied the charge levelled against him and claimed to be tried. 7. In the course of trial, altogether 8 witnesses were examined by the prosecution apart from following documentary evidence:- I. Exhibit-1: Medical report II. Exhibit-2: Written report III. Exhibit-2/1: Signature of informant on written report IV. Exhibit-3: Formal F.I.R. 8. On the other hand, the case of the defence is denial from the occurrence and false implication. However, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. 9. The learned Trial Court after scrutinizing the evidence oral as well as documentary led by the respective parties, arrived at definite conclusion about the guilt of the appellant for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced him as stated above. 2026:JHHC:21526 3 | P a g e Submission on behalf of appellant:- 10. Assailing the impugned judgment, the learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that admittedly the prosecutrix is a married lady and her marriage was solemnized about 17-18 years ago. It is further submitted that the written report of the case was scribed by her husband and she has only put her signature, hence, master mind behind this case is the husband of the prosecutrix, who has falsely implicated the appellant due to previous land dispute going on between the parties and they are under litigating terms also. It is further submitted that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and there are material contradictions and discrepancies as regards to the place of occurrence of this case as in the F.I.R., it is specifically stated that while the prosecutrix had gone to discharge nature's call nearby village pond, she was raped. The next place of occurrence is alleged by witnesses is to be kitchen garden, which is adjacent to her house. The place of occurrence described by the Investigating Officer is to be 100 yards away from the village pond. The prosecutrix has described that at the place of occurrence, there was sand and grass but no mark of any struggle at any place of occurrence has been noticed by the Investigating Officer. The medical report of the victim (Ext.- 1) also does not corroborate the prosecution story. Even if, no any nail mark or bruise were found on any part of her body. It is also submitted that the prosecutrix has stated that her clothes were lifted and she was thrashed on the ground, but in such circumstance, absence of injury negate the truthfulness of the case. It is further argued that PW-2 Prem Chand Mahato, PW-3Prahalad Mandal and PW-4 Anil Mandal have been declared hostile by the prosecution as they have expressed no 2026:JHHC:21526 4 | P a g e knowledge about the occurrence. PW-6 Hemant Kumar Mahato is the hearsay witness and his testimony has no value in the eye of law. The conviction of the appellant has been based upon the evidence of prosecutrix (PW-7), her husband Jitendra Nath Mahato (PW-5) and the Investigating Officer, Ram Nandan Prasad (PW-8). The learned Trial Court has overlooked the glaring discrepancies and material contradictions appearing in the evidence of above witnesses as regards to time of occurrence, manner of occurrence and place of occurrence. Non-consideration of material elicited in the cross-examination by above witnesses has also led the wrong conclusion about the guilt of the appellant. The appellant is absolutely innocent and the testimony of prosecutrix suffers from material discrepancies and contradictions. As such, she cannot be branded as wholly reliable witness for basing conviction of the appellant on her sole testimony without seeking further corroboration. Therefore, conviction and sentence of the appellant is liable to be set aside and this appeal may be allowed. Submission on behalf of State:- 11. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant and defending the impugned judgment has submitted that the learned Trial Court has very wisely and aptly scrutinized the evidence adduced by the prosecution and defence. The learned Trial Court has considered the evidence of material witnesses in threadbare manner. There is no reason to dis-believe the evidence of prosecutrix and the appellant has also not brought on record about previous enmity existing between the appellant and husband of the prosecutrix for any reason whatsoever. The plea of defence is simple denial from the occurrence and false implication. Nothing has been 2026:JHHC:21526 5 | P a g e elicited in the evidence of prosecutrix to spread any cloud on her testimony. She has been found to be exclusively reliable witness by the learned Trial Court. Therefore, there is no valid reason for interference in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant. This appeal is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed. Analysis, Reasons and Decision:- 12. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment and order in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of both side. 13. The only point for consideration of this appeal is, as to whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence suffers from any serious error or law calling for any interference or not? 14. Before adjudicating the above point, it is pertinent to apprise with the testimony of the witnesses examined during trial. 15. It appears from the F.I.R. that there is clear indication about the place of occurrence that the prosecutrix had gone to attend nature's call nearby pond situated at southern side of her village. At that time, the accused was going to his newly built house. He gaged her mouth by his gamchha, thrashed her on the ground and started committing rape upon her. In spite of that she wanted to raise alarm and also claims that hearing her halla, one Prem Chand Mahato, who was passing through the road came to the place of occurrence, then accused fled away taking his gamchha. The prosecutrix, who has been examined as PW-7 during trial, has stated that in the evening at about 6:00 P.M., she was returning after discharging nature's call and when she reached at the Bari of her house, the accused at first tied her mouth by gamchha, then laid down her and 2026:JHHC:21526 6 | P a g e committed rape. In spite of tying her mouth, she raised alarm, then one Prem Chand Mahato arrived and accused flew away. She further states that on the next day morning, she alongwith her husband went to the police station and lodged F.I.R. She had put her signature on the written report as Ext.- 2/1. In her cross-examination, she clearly admits that her marriage was solemnized about 17-18 years ago and she has four children. Her elder son is about 10 years old and one child has died. She further admits that at the place of occurrence, there was sand and grass and her mouth was tied by gamchha by the accused till the commission of rape upon her. Her sari was completely removed and petticoat was lifted, but blouse was not untied. She did not sustain any injury at the time of thrashing on earth. She has stated that her hands were free and both hands of the accused were on her breast. She also admits that she tried to liberate herself with the help of her both hands and legs. She further admits that when the accused fled away from the place of occurrence, she untied gamchha from her mouth and raised alarm. When she reached at her home, she narrated about the incident to her husband. She further states that at the time of occurrence, her body was soaked with soil and sand but no injury of bruise caused to her on any part of body. She further admits that the wearing clothes like sari, petticoat and blouse were shown to the police but the same were not seized by the police. She also states that at the place of occurrence, police arrived, which was identified by her to the police. She further admits that the accused had taken away the gamchha tied on her mouth. She has denied the suggestion of defence that she has given absolutely false evidence against the accused and no such occurrence has ever taken place. 2026:JHHC:21526 7 | P a g e PW-5 Jitendra Nath Mahto is the husband of the prosecutrix. According to him, on 09.11.2007 at about 6:00 P.M., he was at home. In the meantime, he heard halla coming towards the northern side of the village. He came out from his house, in the meantime, his wife has also arrived at house and told in presence of witnesses that when she was returning after discharging nature's call and reached near Bari of Shyam Charan Mahato, in the street, where the accused tied her mouth by his gamchha and committed rape on her. He has further deposed that Prem Chand Mahato was also passing from the place of occurrence and on seeing him, the accused fled away taking his gamchha. He has proved the written report of the occurrence in his own handwriting and signature of his wife as Ext.- 2. In his cross-examination, this witness categorically admits that when he came out from his house, his wife was present at a distance of 50 yards. PW-6 Hemant Kumar Mahato has simply stated that the occurrence is of 09.11.2007 at about 6:00 P.M. Prosecutrix was coming by raising halla that the accused has committed rape upon her. PW-1 Dr. Rita Gupta has medically examined the prosecutrix on 10.11.2007. She has found no internal or external injury on the body of prosecutrix. There was no sign of rape. She has proved the medical report as Ext.-1. PW-8 Ram Nandan Prasad is the investigating officer of this case. According to his evidence, he visited the place of occurrence which is situated at village Barwatand near Bari of Shyam Charan Mahato in western side of village street. He has described the boundary of the said place of occurrence as under:- 2026:JHHC:21526 8 | P a g e Towards West- Bari of Shyam Charan Mahato; East- Paddy field of Madhusudan Mandal; South- at the distance of 100 yards village pond; North- at distance of 150 yards, newly built house of the accused. He has noticed nothing at the place of occurrence. The attention of this witness has been drawn towards statement of Prem Chand Mahato (PW-2) under 161 Cr.P.C., who has stated before him that he was returning in the evening and reached near Bari of Shyam Charan Mahato, then heard halla of a lady and saw the accused was fleeing away and lady disclosed that she has been raped by the accused (present appellant). 16. I have given anxious consideration to the overall aspects of the case and the material evidence available on record. 17. From the aforesaid discussion of evidence and material witnesses examined in this case, particularly, prosecutrix, her husband and other material witnesses of the case. It appears that the witnesses have disclosed three places of occurrence. First is situated near village pond, second is Bari of Shyam Charan Mahato and third is kitchen garden of the prosecutrix. The investigating officer has identified the Bari of Shyam Charan Mahto to be the place of occurrence. The prosecutrix herself has admitted that there was sand and grass at the place of occurrence but no such type of description has been mentioned by the investigating officer. No mark of struggle at the place of occurrence has been noticed. The prosecutrix has categorically stated in her examination in chief that near the pond, while she was returning after discharging nature's call, the accused tied her mouth by his own gamchha and till the commission of rape she could not raise any alarm. She again says that while commission of rape, she raised alarm, then witness Prem Chand Mahato (PW-2), who was passing on the way 2026:JHHC:21526 9 | P a g e arrived and the accused fled away. The prosecutrix further states that after fleeing away of the accused from the place of occurrence, she untied the gamchha then raised alarm. She further states that the accused himself untied her mouth and taking his gamchha fled away. The occurrence is alleged to have happened at about 6:00 P.M. in the evening. It was also the occasion of Diwali. The place of occurrence in the deposition of I.O. is surrounded by houses of the villagers. It was also not odd time of occurrence but no one of the villagers has seen the occurrence and corroborated the prosecution story. 18. It further appears that the learned Trial Court has miserably failed to properly appreciate that there is no iota of evidence proving the exact place of occurrence, exact manner of occurrence as stated by the prosecutrix and presence of witnesses. It is also a fact that prosecutrix is a married lady and her marriage was solemnized about 17-18 years ago and there was no such grievance of any kind with the accused prior to occurrence regarding his conduct and behavior towards the prosecutrix. Medical examination report of the victim also does not corroborate the prosecution story. Although, it is a settled principle of law that conviction for the offence of rape can be based on sole testimony of prosecutrix when she appears to be wholly reliable and her evidence suffers from no blemish material contradictions but at the same time, as a matter of prudence when her testimony suffers from material contradictions and discrepancies, the law requires the evidence of prosecutrix to be corroborated from some independent source. 19. In the instant case as noticed above, there are material contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of prosecutrix, her husband and the evidence of the investigating officer regarding the 2026:JHHC:21526 10 | P a g e genesis, manner and place of occurrence. The prosecutrix has also neither submitted her wearing clothes to the I.O. nor were seized by the I.O. during investigation. The colorable statement of the victim does not satisfy the conscience of this Court to uphold the conviction of the appellant rather I find serious error of law while appreciating the evidence of prosecutrix and her husband by the learned Trial Court, who has ignored the material discrepancies in the evidence of above witnesses. Therefore, it is not safe to place blind reliance upon the evidence of prosecutrix, which appears to be tainted with falsehood. There is no corroborative piece of evidence establishing the charge of rape. 20. In view of the above discussion and reason, I find merits in this appeal. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant passed by the learned Trial Court is hereby set aside. 21. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. 22. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands disposed of. 23. The appellant is on bail. He is discharged from liability of bail bond and sureties are also discharged. 24. Let a copy of this judgment alongwith the trial Court records be sent back immediately to the concerned Trial Court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Dated: 20/07/2026 Rahul- NAFR Uploaded On: 21/07/2026