2026:JHHC:21554 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1488 of 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1488 of 2005 [Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29.09.2005 and 04.10.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC-III), Bokaro in Sessions Trial Case No.100 of 2005] --------- Anand Mahto, S/o-Late Bhagirath Mahto, Residents of village-Siyaljori, P.S. Chandankiyari (Bangariya O.P.), District-Bokaro ……Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. X (victim) …. Respondents ---------- For the Appellant : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P. ----------- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT --------- Dated: 21st July, 2026 By Court:- 1. Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, 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 29.09.2005 and 04.10.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC-III), Bokaro in Sessions Trial Case No.100 of 2005, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under section 376 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 8 years along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under section 376 of IPC with default stipulation. 2026:JHHC:21554 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1488 of 2005 Factual Matrix:- 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 30.12.2004 at about 1:00 pm, the informant after collecting the Jalawan (firewoods) from her field was returning to her home keeping a bundle of the same on her head, the accused Anand Mahto dashed the bundle of Jalawan (firewoods) and caught hold of victim’s right hand, thereupon, the victim gave a teeth bite on his left hand. Thereafter, the accused again caught hold of her right hand. It is further alleged that the victim started shouting for help, then the accused pressed her neck and slapped on both cheeks. The accused dragged her towards the bushes of palm yard and committed rape upon her. The accused threatened the victim that if she would disclose the matter to anybody, she would find the dead body of her husband. At the time of occurrence, no one was present at her house and on 31.12.2004 when her husband and other family members returned to home, she narrated the incident to them. Thereafter, the case was lodged. 4. On the basis of above information, Chandankiyari (Bangariya) P.S. Case No.1 of 2005 was registered for the offence under section 376 of Indian Penal Code against the accused. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against him for the aforesaid offence and the case was committed to the court of Sessions, where Sessions Trial Case No. 100 of 2005 was registered. The appellant has denied from the charges and claimed to be tried. 2026:JHHC:21554 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1488 of 2005 5. In course of trial, altogether 3 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, namely:- P.W.1-Victim P.W.2-S.I. Brij Kumar (I.O.) P.W.3-Dr. M. Thakur 6. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following documentary evidences as well as material exhibits have been adduced by the prosecution. Ext.1–Entire written report Ext.2-Signature of victim on seizure list Ext.2/1-Signature of husband of the victim on seizure list Ext.3-Signature of victim on the consent form of Medical Examination Ext.4-Forwarding of written report to O/C Chandkiyari Bangariya Ext.4/1-Endorsement on written report Ext.5-Entire seizure list Ext.6-Entire medical report Material Ext.I-Material exhibit (broken pieces of bangles and hair pin) 7. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. The case of defence is denial from the occurrence and 2026:JHHC:21554 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1488 of 2005 false implication due to previous enmity between the appellant and the husband of the victim lady. 8. Learned trial court after scrutinizing the evidence available on record held the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offence and sentenced him as stated above, which has been assailed in this appeal. Submission on behalf of appellant:- 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is highly improbable to believe that the occurrence took place in a broad daylight but no one was present and seen the occurrence in spite of hulla raised by the victim lady. It is further submitted that the victim lady in her fardbayan has specifically stated that at the time of occurrence, her husband, elder brother of her husband (bhaisur) and his wife(gotni) were not present and when they returned to the house, she narrated the whole story to them but at that time, no action was taken to lodge the case against the appellant and after expiry of two days, the case was lodged without offering any reasonable explanation, which creates reasonable doubt regarding truthfulness of the prosecution story as well as the complicity of the accused. Learned counsel further submits that there was previous enmity between the family of the victim lady and the accused. It is further submitted that as per fardbayan, the accused has forcibly dragged the victim lady towards bushes of palm yard and ravished her but no external or internal injuries neither on the private part nor any part of the body have been found in medical examination, 2026:JHHC:21554 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1488 of 2005 which has been conducted by the doctor (P.W.3). It is further submitted that except the victim lady, none of her family members including her husband came forward to be examined as witness. Hence, learned trial court on the basis of testimony of the prosecutrix alone (victim) has convicted the appellant without appreciating other factual aspects of the case, which is perverse, illegal and unsustainable. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant is liable to be set aside and he deserves acquittal from the charges leveled against him. Submission on behalf of State:- 10. On the other hand, learned counsel 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 evidence available on record and arrived at right conclusion about the guilt of the appellant for the aforesaid offence.Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant calling for any interference in this appeal, which is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed. Analysis, Reasons and Decision:- 11. 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. 2026:JHHC:21554 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1488 of 2005 12. The only point for determination in this appeal is that “as to whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant passed by learned trial court suffers from any error of law calling for any interference in this appeal?” 13. 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. 14. It appears that altogether 3 witnesses were examined in this case by the prosecution. 15. The sterling witness of this case is the informant-cum-victim, who has been examined as P.W.1. According to her evidence, on 30.12.2004 at about 1:00 pm, she went to collect jalawan (firewoods) from the field and after collecting the jalawan (firewoods), while she was returning to home with bundle of firewood on her head, the accused, Anand Mahto restrained and caught hold of her hand. She protested by giving teeth bite to accused on left hand, but the accused slapped and pressed her neck and forcibly took her to the bushes of palm yard and thrashed on the ground and committed rape upon her by pulling her saree down. She further states that the accused threatened to kill her husband, if she disclosed the above incident to anyone. She has further stated that on the date of occurrence, no one was present in the house including her husband, and when they returned to the house on the next day, she narrated the whole story to them in the night. She further states that on 2026:JHHC:21554 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1488 of 2005 01.01.2005, she has submitted a written report before Officer-in-Charge in the handwriting of Nand Lal, which was read over and explained to her and she put her signature marked as Ext.1. The police visited at the place of occurrence in her presence along with her husband and seized hair pin and broken pieces of bangles and prepared the seizure list and she put her signature on it marked Ext.2. She has also proved the signature of her husband on seizure list, which has been marked as Ext.2/1. She was sent for medical examination and she has proved her signature on medical report Ext.3. She has expressed no knowledge about the land dispute between the accused and her family members. She has denied the suggestion of the defence that at the instance of her husband, she has lodged this false case against the accused. In her cross-examination, nothing has been elicited to disbelieve her above testimony. P.W.2-Brij Kumar is the Investigating Officer. According to his evidence, on 01.01.2005, while he was posted as Officer-In- Charge of Bangariya P.S. received a written report from the victim lady for registration of FIR, thereafter he forwarded the written report to Chandankiyari P.S. for registration of FIR. Endorsement on written report for registration of case marked as Ext.4. After receiving the investigation of this case, he visited the place of occurrence and recovered broken bangles and hair-pin. He further states that the place of occurrence is situated at lonely place and there is no habitation 2026:JHHC:21554 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1488 of 2005 around circumference of two kilometers from place of occurrence. He further states that at a distance of 15 yards towards western direction from place of occurrence, there is narrow way where the accused allegedly caught hold of the hand of the victim lady, from where he recovered pieces of bangles. He prepared seizure list of recovered articles. He further states that after visiting the place of occurrence, he proceeded towards the village, he saw the accused fleeing away by seeing the police party, thereafter on chase, the accused was apprehended. Upon inquiry, he disclosed his name as Anand Mahto. The seal of material exhibits was opened before the court and eight broken pieces of bangle and one back pin (hair pen) were produced before the court as Material Ext.I. He has recorded the statement of the accused, who has denied from the occurrence. He sent the victim lady for medical examination and after finding sufficient evidence against the accused submitted charge-sheet against him. 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. P.W.3-Dr. M. Thakur was posted as Medical Officer at Sub-Division Hospital, Chas on 02.01.2005 and she has examined the victim lady and found following: (1) Gait is normal 2026:JHHC:21554 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1488 of 2005 (2) Physical Examination:- There is no scratch or abrasions of face, chest, breast and abdomen. *Teeth V-15 and L-15 *Secondary sexual organs-well developed. She is married having one child. *Abdominal striae present on abdomen. Her clothes not seized as she has changed her clothes. (3) Pelvic examination:-There is no scratches or abrasions inner side of thigh labia majora, labia minora in and around the vagina. *Vagina admits two fingers loose. There is no discharge or foreign body in and around the vagina. Uterus normal in size. Vaginal swab taken and sent for microscopical examination. Advise for X-ray to determine the age. (4) Vaginal swab report-sperms not sent. (5) X-ray report. Radiological age of patient-more than 22 years and less than 26 years. Opinion:- There is no fresh sign of intercourse. Fresh sign of intercourse means within 24 hours. This witness has proved the report in her pen and signature marked Ext.6. 16. From the aforesaid discussion of prosecution evidence, it is crystal clear that the victim has given minute details about the manner of occurrence and place of occurrence which is also corroborating from the evidence of Investigating Officer. She remains intact in her cross-examination, although she was cross-examined at length. She was medically 2026:JHHC:21554 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1488 of 2005 examined after 73 hours, due to which no live or dead spermatozoa was found. The learned trial Court has already considered the plea of the defence that medical report does not support the allegation of rape and has rightly considered the principle as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs Gurmit Singh & Ors. 1996 (2) SCC 354 in which it has been observed that there is no requirement of law that the testimony of victim of rape cannot be accepted unless corroborated by medical evidence. She has well explained the delay in lodging the FIR in her written report as well as in her deposition. There is no force on the point of argument of learned counsel that no one of her family members including her husband have come forward to give evidence in support of victim. It is well settled principle of law that conviction of the accused could be based on sole testimony of prosecutrix if found reliable. The sole testimony of victim should not be doubted by the Court merely based on assumptions and surmises. 17. 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. 18. 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:- 2026:JHHC:21554 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1488 of 2005 “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 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. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion and reasons, I find that learned trial court has committed no error of law in convicting the appellant for the offence under section 376 of IPC, which is, hereby, upheld and confirmed. I do not find any merits in this appeal, which stands dismissed. 20. The appellant is on bail. He is directed to surrender before the concerned trial court within two months from the date of this judgment 2026:JHHC:21554 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1488 of 2005 to sustain the remaining period of sentence awarded to him, failing which, learned trial court shall take all coercive steps for arrest and detention of the appellant for serving the remaining period of sentence awarded to him. 21. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly. 22. 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 21/07/2026 Pappu/- N.A.F.R. Uploaded On: 29/07/2026