2026:JHHC:21548 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1261 of 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1261 of 2007 --------- Partha Sarathi Ghosh, son of Nirodh Baran Ghosh, resident of villae-Nijhuri, P.S.-Ranishwar, District-Dumka …… Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand …. Respondent ---------- For the Appellant : Mr. Aniket Jaiswal, Advocate Mr. Niraj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Naveen Kumar Ganjhu, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Kumar Nitish, Advocate Mr. A.K. Rashidi, Advocate --------- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT ----------- C.A.V. On 01/07/2026 Pronounced On 20/07/2026 1. Heard Mr. Aniket Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. assisted with learned counsel for the informant. 2. Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12.09.2007 and 13.09.2007 passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Dumka in Sessions Case No.194 of 2006, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under sections 376 and 417 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years for the offence under section 376 of IPC and R.I. for 1 year for the offence under section 417 of IPC along with a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Factual Matrix:- 2026:JHHC:21548 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1261 of 2007 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the appellant, Partha Sarathi Ghosh developed a love relationship with the complainant on assurance of solemnizing marriage with her and started enjoying sexual relationship inducing her to belief that he is her husband. It is further alleged that there was exchange of several love letters between the prosecutrix and the accused, Partha Sarthi Ghosh. In the course of time, the complainant became pregnant due to sexual relationship with the appellant then, she requested the accused to immediately solemnize marriage with her but the accused brought her to Bengal where he administered some medicines to terminate her two months’ pregnancy. In the month of August, 2005, the accused flatly declined to solemnize marriage with the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant along with her sister visited to the parents of the accused at his house and came to know that negotiation for marriage of the accused with another girl was going on and his marriage was scheduled to be held on 21.02.2006. Hence, this complaint case was lodged on 14.02.2006. 4. As per order under section 156 of Cr.P.C., Ranishwar P.S. Case No.12 of 2006 was registered for the offence under sections 376, 493 and 417 read with section 34 of IPC against the present appellant. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for the aforesaid offenses and the case was committed to the court of Sessions where Sessions Case194 of 2006 was registered. 2026:JHHC:21548 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1261 of 2007 5. In course of trial, altogether 14 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, namely:- P.W.1-Mahadeo Murmu P.W.2-Debu Das P.W.3-Alone Murmu P.W.4- Tapas Kumar Ghosh P.W.5-Vidyut Ghosh P.W.6-Shivlal Tudu P.W.7-Victim P.W.8-Dr. Aruna Chaterjee P.W.9-Bharti Das P.W.10-Ranjeet Das P.W.11-Budhdeo Das P.W.12-Jharna Das P.W.13-Rajiv Kr. Mandal P.W.14-A.S.I. Baneshwar Tiwari (Investigating Officer) 6. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following documentary evidences have been adduced by the prosecution. Ext.1 to 1/8-Letters written by Parth Sarathi Ghosh Ext.2-Medical report Ext.3-Petition of P.C.R. No.58 of 2006 Ext.3/1-Endorsement Ext.4-Formal FIR 2026:JHHC:21548 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1261 of 2007 Ext.5-Carbon copy of requisition for injury report 7. The case of defense is denial from the occurrence and false implication due to non-performance of marriage with the victim girl on account of unavoidable circumstances and altogether 3 defence witnesses have been examined by the defence, namely:- D.W.1-Hartan Mandal D.W.2-Biswanath Triwedi (constanble No.867 of Santhia, Dist. Birbhum) D.W.3-Banlata Ghosh 8. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following documentary evidences have been adduced by the defence. Ext.A-Serial No.489 dated 23.01.1989 of Admission register of Primary School, Nijhuri of the prosecutrix Ext.B-Report of O.C. Sainthia Police Station (W.B.) Ext.C-Entry dated 10.02.2006 of station diary of Sainthia P.S. Ext.D-Letter No.7277(V)/CA(1) dated 23.07.2007 of S.P., Birbhum Ext.E-Letter dated 07.06.2004 Ext.F and F/1-C.C. of voter list of the year 2005-2007 Ext.X-Photocopy of the application written to the O/C Saiathia P.S., Birbhum 2026:JHHC:21548 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1261 of 2007 9. Learned trial court after scrutinizing the evidence available on record held the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offences and sentenced him as stated above, which has been assailed in this appeal. Submission on behalf of appellant:- 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that admittedly, the victim girl was major aged about 22 years on the date of occurrence, which happened in the year 2002. Admittedly, there was love affairs, which culminated into physical relationship. The story of termination of pregnancy of the prosecutrix at the instance of the present appellant is absolutely false allegation. It is highly improbable that since 5-6 years, the prosecutrix was duped by the present appellant with a view to satisfy his lust. The real fact is that the parents of the appellant were not consenting for marriage with the complainant and his marriage was settled elsewhere, hence this complaint case was lodged by the prosecutrix with intention to malign the image of the appellant and as a matter of vengeance. Learned trial court has miserably failed to appreciate that the victim was a major lady and there was consensual relationship between the appellant and the complainant. Therefore, offence under section 376 of IPC is not constituted. The victim was never deceived or fraudulently induced to enter into sexual relationship with the appellant. Therefore, offence under section 417 of IPC is also not constituted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the 2026:JHHC:21548 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1261 of 2007 appellant is absolutely illegal and based on wrong interpretation of evidence available on record, which is liable to be set aside and this appeal may be allowed. In the alternative, it is argued that in the course of trial and post-conviction, the appellant has remained in custody about 1 year and 10 months and has sufficiently been punished for his guilt. The occurrence is of the year 2002 and since then, more than two decades have expired. Now, much water has flown in the social condition of the appellant and the prosecutrix. Both are married having children and leading a happy conjugal life without any interference in between the parties. Therefore, sending the appellant to jail custody for serving the rest period of imprisonment awarded to him would meet no fruitful purpose in the ends of justice. Therefore, the sentence passed against the appellant may be reduced with the imprisonment already undergone. Submission on behalf of State:- 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted with the learned counsel for the appellant has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and defended the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant and submitted that the appellant on account of false promise of marriage with the complainant established sexual relationship with her, due to which she became pregnant and her pregnancy was terminated by administering some medicines by the appellant. It is a case of dishonest intention of 2026:JHHC:21548 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1261 of 2007 the appellant from the very beginning to satisfy his physical lust without intention for solemnizing marriage with the prosecutrix. Therefore, the consent of the victim was not valid but was a result of misconception of the fact due to deception of the appellant in making her belief that he would solemnize marriage with the victim girl. The appellant has not pleaded any unavoidable circumstances beyond his control, which prevented him from solemnizing marriage with the victim girl. Therefore, conviction and sentence of the appellant is absolutely justified under law and requires no interference in this appeal, which 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 determination in this appeal is that “as to whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants passed by learned trial court suffers from any error of law calling for any interference in this appeal?” 14. Before adjudicating the above point, it is necessary to take brief resume of oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution to substantiate the charges leveled against the appellant. 15. It appears that altogether 14 witnesses were examined in this case by the prosecution. 2026:JHHC:21548 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1261 of 2007 The most important witness is the informant-cum-victim girl examined as P.W.7. According to her evidence, in the year 2002, she was about 15 years and love affair was going on with Prath Sarthi Ghosh, who allured her for solemnizing marriage and committed rape with her. She was under physical relationship with the accused till April, 2005. When she became pregnant, then disclosed the above facts to her parents and Parth Sarthi Ghosh. She has further deposed that the accused advised her to get abortion, thereafter he will solemnize marriage in customary manner. She was brought to Bengal by Parth Sarthi Ghosh, where her pregnancy was terminated. She has further deposed that after three months of the above occurrence, the accused left talking with her and visiting at her home. Thereafter, she along with her sister went to the house of appellant then, his father told her that he has settled the marriage of Parth Sarthi Ghosh with another girl and his marriage is scheduled to be held on 21.02.2006. She again requested Parth Sarthi Ghosh and his father for solemnizing marriage, otherwise, her life will be ruined and she will commit suicide but of no effect. Thereafter, she lodged this case in the court, which was sent to police station for registration of FIR. The police also sent the victim girl for medical examination. She also admits that the appellant used to send letters to her and she has produced 9 photocopies of the letters in the handwriting of Parth Sarthi Ghosh, which were marked as Ext.1 to 1/8. 2026:JHHC:21548 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1261 of 2007 In her cross-examination, she admits that she appeared in matriculation examination in the year 2006 and her date of birth in the school register was 15.01.1984. She also admits that her family members knew about the love affair with the accused and they were desiring to solemnize marriage with each other. She also admits that since, the accused has promised to solemnize marriage with her, hence, she did not protest against sexual relationship. First time, she was subjected to sexual intercourse in the year, 2002 when she was aged about 15 years. She has been cross-examined at length but nothing has been elicited to discredit her aforesaid testimony. P.W.1-Mahadeo Murmu has stated nothing about the facts of the case rather he only claims to have seen the complainant and the accused together several times. P.W.2 is father of the victim girl and he was examined on 30.03.2007 and stated that since five years ago, his daughter was under love affair with the accused, Parth Sarthi Ghosh and frequently, the accused visited to his home. His daughter became pregnant of two months then, she disclosed the physical relationship with the accused. He also visited to the father and uncle of the accused and requested to solemnize marriage of his daughter with Parth Sarthi Ghosh. He has also deposed that Parth Sarthi Ghosh himself went with his daughter to Bengal, where pregnancy of his daughter was terminated. This case was lodged by his daughter when the accused declined to solemnize 2026:JHHC:21548 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1261 of 2007 marriage with her. There is nothing in his cross-examination to rebut the aforesaid testimony. P.W.3-Alone Murmu is also hearsay witness, who has heard about the love relationship between the prosecutrix and Parth Sarthi Ghosh. He also heard that father of the victim girl went to the house of the accused and met with the father and uncle of the appellant but they declined to solemnize marriage the accused, Parth Sarthi Ghosh with the victim girl. Then, this case was lodged. P.W.4-Tapas Kumar is also a hearsay witness and heard about the love relationship between the prosecutrix and Parth Sarthi Ghosh. Both were desiring to marry with each other but the marriage could not be solemnized. He has stated nothing else. P.W.5-Vidyut Ghosh is also a hearsay witness about the love affair between the victim girl and prosecutrix but their marriage could not be solemnized. P.W.6-Shiv Lal Tudu is also a hearsay witness and stated that he heard about love relationship between the prosecutrix and Parth Sarthi Ghosh. He has also heard about termination of pregnancy of the victim girl by the accused at Bengal. P.W.8-Dr. Aruna Chatterjee is one of the member of the medical board constituted by the Superintendent, Sadar Hospital, Dumka, who has examined the prosecutrix on 23.02.2006 and opined to 2026:JHHC:21548 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1261 of 2007 the age of victim between 18-19 years and have found no injury either external or internal. P.W.9 is mother of the victim girl. She has stated that there was love relationship between her daughter and accused, Parth Sarthi Ghosh and the accused has committed rape with her daughter on false promise of marriage inducing her to solemnize marriage. Due to deep relationship, her daughter became pregnant and while she was carrying two months’ pregnancy, the accused brought her to Bengal and got abortion. Thereafter, the appellant declined to solemnize marriage with her daughter and stopped visiting with her daughter. She also went to the house of the accused, Parth Sarthi Ghosh and met with his father and uncle for marriage of her daughter (victim girl) but it was told that marriage of Parth Sarthi Ghosh was settled with another girl. Then, this case was lodged by the victim girl. In her cross-examination, nothing has been elicited in her cross-examination to discredit her testimony. P.W.10- Ranjeet Das has expressed nothing about occurrence and declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.11-Budhdeo Das is brother-in-law of the victim girl. He has also stated about love relationship between prosecutrix and the accused, since 2002, when, she was subjected to rape by the accused on pretext of marriage with her, which continued till 2005 and the victim girl became pregnant. Thereafter, the accused brought the victim to 2026:JHHC:21548 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1261 of 2007 Bengal, where her pregnancy was terminated and later on the accused declined to solemnize marriage with her. P.W.12-Jharna Das is sister of the prosecutrix. She came to know about the incident from the victim girl regarding love affair with the accused since 5 years and commission of rape with her on pretext of marriage and termination of her pregnancy by the accused. Thereafter the accused declined to solemnized marriage with her sister. P.W.13-Rajiv Kumar Mandal is a formal witness and he has proved the complaint petition in six pages lodged by the complainant, which was dictated by him and got typed and read over and explained to the complainant marked Ext.3. P.W.14- A.S.I. Baneshwar Tiwari is Investigating Officer of this case. He has proved the endorsement on complaint for registration of case marked Ext.3/1 and Formal FIR Ext.4. He visited the place of occurrence, which is pakka house of the father of the victim girl situated in village Nijhru consisting of two rooms and in the eastern room, prosecutrix was residing. He interrogated with witnesses and also searched about the accused, who was absconding. He recorded the statement of other witnesses, namely, Shivlal Tudu, Alone Murmu, Ranjeet Das, Mahadeo Murmu, Tapas Kumar Ghosh etc on 17.02.2006. On 21.02.2006, the accused surrendered before the court and his statement was recorded. He also recorded the statement of the victim on 23.02.2006 and sent her for medical examination under requisition in 2026:JHHC:21548 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1261 of 2007 his handwriting marked Ext.5. He further interrogated with the witnesses, Bidhutvaran Ghose, Sarna Das and etc, and after completion of investigation finding sufficient evidence against the appellant, he has submitted charge-sheet against the appellant. He has not seized any love letters exchanged in between the prosecutrix and the appellant. The name of hospital was not disclosed to him where abortion of the victim was done. Hence, he could not investigate in this regard. The victim has not disclosed before him about any love letters nor produced any love letters for verification. He has denied the suggestion of the defence that his investigation is defective and without sufficient evidence, he has submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons. 16. On the other hand, the defence has also examined three witnesses i.e., D.W.1-Harathen Mandal is a headmaster of Primary School of Nijhuri has produced the admission register and other documents in compliance of the order of the court. He has proved that on serial No.489 dated 23.01.1989, the prosecutrix was admitted in class-I and her date of birth is 15.01.1984. This entry is marked as Ext.A. There is nothing in his cross-examination to discredit the aforesaid facts. D.W.2-Bishwanath Trivedi is a constable and in compliance of the order of the court, he has brought General Diary dated 10.02.2006 along with a report in the writing and signature of Officer-in-Charge, S.I. Madhav Chandra Mandal bearing seal of police station, which is marked as Ext.B. He has also proved a report issued by 2026:JHHC:21548 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1261 of 2007 Superintendent of Police, Birbhum to the court under signature of the then, Superintendent of Police, S.S. Panna bearing Memo No.7277V/6AX1 dated 23.07.2007, which is marked as Ext.D. D.W.3-Banlata Ghosh was the headmaster in Nijhuri Primary School on 23.01.1989 and she has proved the admission register serial No.489 in her handwriting as dictated by the parents of the child. 17. From the aforesaid discussion of prosecution evidence, particularly P.W.7, the victim-cum-informant, it is crystal clear that the love relationship developed between the prosecutrix and the appellant in the year 2002. The love affair was all along within the cognizance of parents of both parties. The prosecutrix used to go outside and reside with the appellant at different places. It is also proved that sexual relationship developed only on account of promise of marriage made by the accused to the prosecutrix. In the pretext of marriage, the accused was all along indulged in sexual activities with the victim girl. Although, the prosecution has not brought on record the school admission register or any authentic documentary evidence showing the actual date of birth of prosecutrix, which has been brought on record by the defence and proved by D.W.1 and D.W.3. The first school attended by the victim girl was the Nijhuri Primary School of her village showing her date of birth is 15.01.1984 (Ext.A). The love letters (Ext.1 to 1/8) have been produced by the victim girl purported to be written by the 2026:JHHC:21548 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1261 of 2007 accused to her showing his love and affection and promise of marriage. The oral as well as documentary evidence adduced in this case by the prosecution clearly shows that there was no reason for the victim to accord consent for sexual indulgence except on the belief created in her mind by the appellant that he would certainly solemnize marriage with her. The appellant has never acceded her request rather solemnized marriage with another woman betraying the trust reposed on him by the victim girl. 18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Deepak Gulati Vs. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675 has held at para 21 that:- “21. Consent may be express or implied, coerced or misguided, obtained willingly or through deceit. Consent is an act of reason, accompanied by deliberation, the mind weighing, as in a balance, the good and evil on each side. There is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex and in a case like this, the court must very carefully examine whether the accused had actually wanted to marry the victim, or had mala fide motives, and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the latter falls within the ambit of cheating or deception. There is a distinction between the mere breach of a promise, and not fulfilling a false promise. Thus, the court must examine whether there was made, at an early stage a false promise of marriage by the accused; and whether the consent involved was given after wholly understanding the nature and consequences of sexual indulgence. There may be a case where the prosecutrix agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of 2026:JHHC:21548 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1261 of 2007 her love and passion for the accused, and not solely on account of misrepresentation made to her by the accused, or where an accused on account of circumstances which he could not have foreseen, or which were beyond his control, was unable to marry her, despite having every intention to do so. Such cases must be treated differently. An accused can be convicted for rape only if the court reaches a conclusion that the intention of the accused was mala fide, and that he had clandestine motives.” 19. The entire factual background of the case clearly indicates that the intention of the appellant was dishonest and deceptive from the very beginning. He never intended to solemnize marriage with the victim girl rather to satisfy his own lust at the cost of inducement to the victim pledging her chastity and honor at the hands of present appellant. 20. In the aforementioned circumstances, the consent of the victim cannot be said to be free and voluntarily rather it was outcome of deceitful means which prevailed over her by the accused/appellant vitiating her consent to be given under misconception of fact. The accused has also not brought on record any material showing that due to some exceptional hardship or unavoidable circumstances beyond his control, he was unable to solemnize marriage with the victim girl and he has honestly made the promise to solemnize marriage, which could not be fulfilled. Therefore, it cannot be said to be a case of mere breach of promise of marriage. Therefore, considering the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances proved by the prosecution and the reasons 2026:JHHC:21548 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1261 of 2007 recorded by learned trial court while holding the appellant guilty for the offences charged against him, the offences under sections 376 and 417 of IPC are absolutely fortified and established. Therefore, I do not find any valid reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offences. 21. So far quantum of sentence is concerned, admittedly, the occurrence is of in between 2002 to 2005 and more than two decades has been lapsed. The appellant as well as the victim girl in this case have now settled in their life after solemnizing marriage of their own choice and leading happy conjugal life. The appellant is also not involved in any other criminal activities rather discharging his conjugal obligations and family responsibilities. 22. Under such circumstances, the reformative theory of punishment must prevail over the deterrence. Sending the appellant to serve the remaining period of sentence awarded to him will have no deterrent effect rather create an irreparable hardship to his spouse and family. Therefore, sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant during trial and post-conviction in this case would meet the ends of justice in this particular case. 23. In view of the above discussion and reasons, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under sections 376 and 417 of IPC is upheld with modification in sentence to the extent that instead of undergoing to sentence of R.I. for 7 years awarded by the trial court, the sentence of 2026:JHHC:21548 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1261 of 2007 the appellant is reduced to the imprisonment of 1 year and 10 months already undergone by him. 24. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence as stated above. 25. Appellant is on bail, hence, he is discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds. The sureties are also discharged. 26. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly. 27. 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 Dated 20 /07 /2026 Pappu/- N.A.F.R. Uploaded on 22 /07 /2026