2026:JHHC:21529 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 357 of 2005 ------ Lakhi Das Lakra, Son of Lodro Lakra, Resident of Village-Balikat Bartoli, P.S.-Namkum, Dist.-Ranchi … .... …. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mrs. Juhi Kumari, Amicus Curiae For the Resp. State : Mr. V.S. Sahay, A.P.P. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT C.A.V. on 30.06.2026 Pronounced on 20.07.2026 1. Heard the arguments of learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and learned A.P.P. 2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 08.10.2004 and order of sentence dated 11.10.2004 passed by learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court-X, Ranchi in S.T. No. 561 of 1995/T.R. No. 138 of 2003, 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 8 (eight) years along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation. Factual Matrix:- 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 07.04.1995, at about 09:00AM, the informant-cum-victim (P.W.-5) was going to collect fuel-wood, in the meantime, the accused person (present appellant) caught her from behind and pushed her into the ditch and after removing her undergarments, committed rape upon her. The informant-cum-victim raised hue and cry but nobody came to rescue her due to far-flung area and again 2026:JHHC:21529 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 357 of 2005 2 committed rape till 12:00 noon, consequently, blood started oozing from her private part due to which, she became unconscious. When, she got up, she found that her parents were carrying her to home, where she narrated the occurrence to her parents and her parents decided to resolve the matter in Panchayat but the same was not resolved, hence, the F.I.R. was lodged on next day. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, Namkum P.S. Case No. 35 of 1995 was registered for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC against the accused. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted for the said offence. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of sessions, where S.T. No. 561 of 1995 was registered. 4. In the course of trial, altogether 8 witnesses were examined by the prosecution apart from documentary evidence. 5. On the other hand, the case of the defence is denial from occurrence, innocence and false implication. However, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence except the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 6. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on record, found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced him as stated above. 2026:JHHC:21529 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 357 of 2005 3 Submissions on behalf of appellant: - 7. Learned amicus curiae for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has argued that the learned trial Court has failed to consider the evidence of the witnesses who have not supported the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted that the informant of this case has lodged this false case at the instance of her father. It is also submitted that there is no eye witness in this case to prove the commission of rape upon the victim. It is further submitted that Doctor who has examined the victim has also not found any injury supporting the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the learned trial court has erred in passing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is liable to be set aside allowing this appeal. In the alternative, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has remained in custody for about two years five months as awarded by the learned trial Court for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. Learned counsel further submits that this case is stale one of the year 1995 and more than three decades have passed from the date of occurrence and now both accused person as well as the victim are leading their own normal life. It is also submitted that the appellant has sufficiently been punished for his guilt and again sending the appellant for sustaining the rest period of imprisonment, would yield no useful purpose. Hence, a lenient view may be taken with respect to the sentence of the appellant to meet the ends of justice in this case. 2026:JHHC:21529 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 357 of 2005 4 Submissions on behalf of the State 8. Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and has submitted that the learned trial Court has very wisely and aptly considered the evidence of the witnesses and has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence committed by him. There is no merit in this appeal which is fit to be dismissed. Analysis, reasons and decision: 9. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of both side. 10. The victim girl in her cross-examination from paragraph 10-12 has given minute details about the manner of occurrence and her testimony has left no room to bely the case of the prosecution. It is an admitted fact that a Panchayati was called in the village for resolving the issue of commission of rape by the accused person and it was decided in the Panchayati that the accused person (the present appellant) should marry the victim girl but when the accused person denied from marriage, an F.I.R. was lodged which strengthens the case of the prosecution and falsifies the plea taken by the appellant that this false case has been lodged at the instance of the father of the victim. It also appears that the parents of the victim P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 have consistently deposed that they found her daughter in unconscious condition and her clothes were bloodstained. It also 2026:JHHC:21529 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 357 of 2005 5 appears that the occurrence took place in a far-flung forest area when the victim girl had gone to collect fuel wood which also negates the plea of the appellant. The learned trial Court has already considered the plea of the defence that medical report does not support the allegation of rape in paragraph 22 of the impugned judgment and has rightly considered the principle as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the evidence of victim in a case of rape does not need material corroboration. 11. In the case of Ganesan Vs. State represented by its Inspector of Police, reported in (2020)10 SCC 573, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the sole testimony of the victim if found reliable and trustworthy, requires no corroboration and may be sufficient to invite the conviction of the accused. 12. Further, in the case of Nirmal Premkumar v. State of T.N., (2024) 20 SCC 293, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “24. What flows from the aforesaid decisions is that in cases where witnesses are neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, the Court should strive to find out the true genesis of the incident. The Court can rely on the victim as a “sterling witness” without further corroboration, but the quality and credibility must be exceptionally high. The statement of the prosecutrix ought to be consistent from the beginning to the end (minor inconsistences excepted), from the initial statement to the oral testimony, without creating any doubt qua the prosecution's case. While a victim's testimony is usually enough for sexual offence cases, an unreliable or insufficient account from the prosecutrix, marked by identified flaws and gaps, could make it difficult for a conviction to be recorded.” ………… 43. Conviction undoubtedly can be recorded on the sole evidence of a victim of crime; however, it must undergo a 2026:JHHC:21529 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 357 of 2005 6 strict scrutiny through the well-settled legal principles as established by this Court in a catena of decisions. While the actions attributed to A-1, as sought to be demonstrated by the prosecution, may fall within the purview of “sexual harassment” under Section 11 of the Pocso Act, the evidence in this case has been marred by inadequacies from the outset, evident in contradictions within statements and testimonies. The evidence led leaves reasonable suspicion as to whether A-1 was actually involved in any criminal act. 13. In view of the above discussion and reasons, the conviction of the appellant passed by the learned trial Court is hereby upheld. 14. So far as the sentence of the appellant is concerned, it appears that the occurrence is of the year 1995 and since then, more than three decades have elapsed and the appellant has suffered long agony of the trial and now both victim as well as accused are leading their own normal life and the appellant has remained in custody for about two years five months, 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, for the ends of justice to modify/alter the sentence of the appellant. 15. Accordingly, the sentence of the appellant is modified to the extent of period already undergone by him. 16. In result, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence as stated above. 17. Appellant is on bail, hence, he is discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds. The sureties are also discharged. 18. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly. 19. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be 2026:JHHC:21529 Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 357 of 2005 7 sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. 20. I take this opportunity to appreciate the assistance rendered by Mrs. Juhi Kumari, learned Amicus Curiae and direct the Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee to extend the stipulated fee as per notification of High Court Legal Services Committee to learned Amicus Curiae, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 21. Office is directed to ensure that a copy of this order is served upon Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 20/07/2026 Basant / NAFR Uploaded On: 22/07/2026