2026:JHHC:21961 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 436 of 2009 [Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence both dated 18.04.2009, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III (Fast Track Court), Jamtara, in Sessions Trial No. 71 of 2008] -------- Pappu Mohli, son of Jiya Mohli, resident of Village-Gaichland, P.S.+District-Jamtara ... ... Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent ----- P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Appellant : Mr. Nityanand Pd. Choudhary, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P. -------- J UDGMENT Dated: 24th July, 2026 By court Heard, Mr. Nityanand Pd. Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence both dated 18.04.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III (Fast Track Court), Jamtara, in Sessions Trial No. 71 of 2008, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Sections 450/376 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. along with fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years for the offence under Section 450 of the I.P.C. along with fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently. Factual Matrix 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the informant (P.W.-2) lodged a written report before Officer-in-charge, Jamtara 2026:JHHC:21961 2 (Mahila) Police Station, stating inter alia that on 25.03.2008 at 12:00 P.M., she was alone in her house, but the door of the house was open. The accused Pappu Mohli, suddenly entered her house and started to harassing her forcibly. When she attempted to raise alarm, the accused stuffed a cloth in her mouth and committed forcibly rape upon her, thereafter, the accused fled away after committing rape upon her. When she raised alarm, her neighbours, namely Nimai Pandit, Abu Bowry and Simant Boury came there and she told them about the alleged occurrence. She also disclosed about the alleged occurrence to her brother-in-law and her sister. Thereafter, a village Panchayati was held to oust the accused, Pappu Mohli, from the village, but the family members of Pappu Mohli did not agree. Consequently, the informant lodged a case against the accused at the police station. 4. On the basis of above information, F.I.R. was registered for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the present appellant for the offence under Sections 376 & 450 of the I.P.C. 5. After taking cognizance the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where Sessions Trial No. 71 of 2008 was registered. The charges were read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In the course of trial, altogether six witnesses were examined by prosecution:- (i) P.W.-1-Dinesh Pandit (ii) P.W.-2-Victim (informant) 2026:JHHC:21961 3 (iii) P.W.-3-Gaur Pandit (iv) P.W.-4-Simant Bouri (v) P.W.-5-Kanaklata Lakra (I.O. of this case) (vi) P.W.-6-Dr. Madhubala Sinha 7. Apart from oral testimony following documentary evidence have also been adduced by prosecution. (i) Exhibit-1-Written Statement of informant (ii) Exhibit-1/1-Registration of written report by Kanaklata Lakra (P.W.-5) (iii) Exhibit-2-Formal F.I.R. (iv) Exhibit-3-Requisition for medical examination of victim (v) Exhibit-4-Medical report of victim 8. However, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by defence. 9. 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. Submissions on behalf of appellant: - 10. Learned counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to consider the evidence of the independent witnesses i.e. P.W.-1, P.W.-3 & P.W.-4, who are neighbours of the victim, have not supported the case of the prosecution. Learned counsel further submits that there is no eye witness to the alleged occurrence and the medical examination of victim conducted by P.W.-6, 2026:JHHC:21961 4 Dr. Madhubala Sinha, does not support the prosecution version, as no injury suggestive of the alleged offence was found. It is further argued that there are material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses, the benefit of which ought to have been extended to the appellant. It is also submitted that the house of the appellant and the victim are situated adjacent to each other and due to an existing land dispute between them, there is strong possibility of false implication of the appellant. 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. Submissions on behalf of State: - 11. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. 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, discussions and reasons:- 12. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side. 13. The only point for consideration in this appeal is that “as to whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant suffers from any serious error of law as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant calling for any 2026:JHHC:21961 5 interference in this appeal?” Analysis, discussions and reasons:- 14. Before adjudicating the aforesaid point, it is necessary to take brief resume of the evidence adduced during trial by the respective parties. P.W.-2 is the informant as well as the victim of this case. She has stated that she was sleeping in her room on 25.03.2008. At about 12.00 o' clock, Pappu Mohli entered her room and forcibly committed rape upon her. When she attempted to raise alarm, the accused Pappu Mohli stuffed clothes in her mouth and forcibly committed rape upon her for about 5 minutes. When she managed to make noise, the accused Pappu Mohli, fled away from there. Upon hearing hulla, the neighbours, namely Nemai Bouri, Simant Bouri and Habu Bouri, came there and other villagers also came there. She told them about the alleged occurrence. Thereafter, a Panchayati was held in the village. The Panchayat decided to oust the accused Pappu Mohli from the village because he had committed such type of heinous offence. However, the family members of Pappu Mohli did not obey the decision of the Panchayat. Therefore, she lodged a criminal case against the accused at the police station. The police recorded her statement. She was sent to Jamtara Hospital, where Dr. Madhubala Sinha examined her. Thereafter, she was brought to the place of occurrence, where she showed the place of occurrence to the police and the police recorded the statements of the villagers and other witnesses. This witness has identified the written report, which is marked as Exhibit-1. She was cross-examined at length but nothing came to 2026:JHHC:21961 6 belie her evidence. P.W.1 is Dinesh Pandit, P.W.3 is Ganesh Pandit and P.W.4, Simant Bouri have been declared hostile and not supported the prosecution case. P.W.6 is Dr. Madhubala Sinha who has deposed that on 26.03.2008 at about 04:10 P.M, she examined the victim, aged about 30 years and found the following:- The victim was 4.10" tall and weighed about 40 kg. She has 16 teeth in each upper and lower jaw. No mark of external injury was found anywhere over her body. On examination of external genitalia, no mark of external injury. No matting of pubic hair. No seminal or blood stained and no loose hair was found. There was old rapture of hymen and vagina was patulous. Vaginal swab was taken and slide was sent to pathology for microscopic examination to see for presence of spermatozoa. Spermatozoa was not found by pathological report. Opinion:-She has opined that on the basis of above finding, it is not possible to say whether rape was committed or not. This witness has identified the report, which is marked as Exhibit-4. P.W.5 Kanaklata Lakra is the I.O. of this case. She has stated that she recorded the statement and re-statement of the informant victim. She investigated the place of occurrence, which was the house of the informant. To the East of the place of occurrence there was the house of Malind Murmu. To the West there was the house of Pappu Mohli (the appellant). To the North was the open place of the informant and to the 2026:JHHC:21961 7 South was the courtyard of informant. She arrested to accused, Pappu Mohli. She sent the victim to hospital for medical examination. This witness has identified the endorsement on fardbeyan, marked as Exhibit 1/1. This witness has also proved the formal F.I.R, marked as Exhibit-2 and requisition slip for the medical examination of the victim, marked as Exhibit-3. 15. The testimony of the victim (P.W.-2), who is the informant of the case, is consistent and trustworthy. It is well settled that conviction in a case of sexual offence can be based on the sole testimony of the victim, if her evidence inspires confidence and does not suffer from any material contradiction or infirmity. The victim has categorically stated that the appellant forcibly entered into her house and committed rape upon her. Her statement regarding the occurrence has remained consistent throughout the trial. The minor discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant are not of such a nature as to discredit the entire prosecution case. The evidence of the victim cannot be discarded merely because the independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution version, particularly when the incident had taken place inside her house at dead of night. 16. So far as the medical evidence is concerned, P.W.-6, the doctor, has opined that on the basis of examination, it was not possible to say whether rape was committed or not. However, absence of injury or negative medical opinion by itself does not falsify the testimony of the victim. It is a settled principle of law that medical evidence is only corroborative in nature and conviction can be sustained on the basis of 2026:JHHC:21961 8 credible testimony of the victim alone. 17. The contention of the appellant regarding false implication due to land dispute also does not find support from the evidence available on record. No material has been brought on record to establish that the victim had any reason to falsely implicate the appellant by making such a serious allegation. 18. In the case of Ganesan versus 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. Further, in the case of Nirmal Premkumar & Anr. v. State represented by Inspector of Police 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 2026:JHHC:21961 9 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…………” 19. This Court is of the considered view that the learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence available on record and has recorded a finding of guilt against the appellant under Sections 376 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code. The impugned judgment of conviction does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or infirmity warranting interference by this Court. 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 that the evidence of victim in a case of rape does not need material corroboration. 20. In view of the above discussion and reasons, I find that the learned Trial Court has committed no error of law in convicting the appellant for the offence under Sections 450/376 of the I.P.C., which is, hereby upheld and confirmed. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. 21. The appellant is on bail, his bail bond is cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the concerned Trial Court within two months from the date of this judgment 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 2026:JHHC:21961 10 remaining period of sentence awarded to him. 22. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly. 23. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be sent back to the court concerned immediately for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) 24.07.2026 Arpit Uploaded on 03/08/2026