2026:JHHC:24536 IN THE HIGH COURT OFJHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1311 of 2004 --------- [Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.07.2004 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Rajmahal in S.C. No. 40 of 2002 / S.T. No. 161 of 2002 arising out of Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 125 of 2001 corresponding to G.R. No. 220 of 2001 and T.R. No. 164 of 2002.] --------- Md. Rasid Sk. @ Md. Rasid, Son of Md. Reyazuddin, Resident of Mansingha, P.S.- Rajmahal, District- Sahebganj. ……Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand …. Respondent --------- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA --------- For the Appellant : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate : Ms. Anshu Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Shashikant Jaiswal, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P. ----------- JUDGMENT CAV On: 09th July, 2026 Pronounced On: 14/08/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Special P.P. 2. Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 09.07.2004 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Rajmahal in S.C. No. 40 of 2002 / S.T. No. 161 of 2002 arising out of Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 125 of 2001 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 220 of 2001 and T.R. No. 164 of 2002, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 376 and 451of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years alongwith the fine of Rs. 3000/- for of the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and R.I. for one year alongwith the fine of Rs. 1000 for the 2026:JHHC:24536 2 | P a g e offence under Section 451 I.P.C. with default stipulation. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Factual Matrix:- 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 09.08.2001, the prosecutrix was sleeping in her house alongwith her nephew. At about 11:30 P.M., when the prosecutrix went out from room, the accused Rashik Sk. suddenly came there and caught hold of her, gagged her mouth and dragged her inside her house. The accused threatened the prosecutrix to kill and forcibly established relationship with her. When the prosecutrix tried to raise alarm, the accused tied her mouth and assured her of getting marriage with her. Thereafter, the accused fled away. 4. On the basis of written report of the prosecutrix, F.I.R. being Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 125 of 2001 was registered for the offences under Section 376 of the I.P.C. against the appellant and later on, Section 452 I.P.C. was also added. 5. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the present appellant for the aforesaid offences. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions, where S.C. No. 40 of 2002 / S.T. No. 161 of 2002 was registered. 6. The appellant denied from the charges levelled against him and claimed to be tried. 7. In the course of trial, altogether 10 witnesses were examined by the prosecution apart from following documentary evidence. I. Exhibit-1: signature of witness on written report. II. Exhibit-2: Injury report of victim 2026:JHHC:24536 3 | P a g e III. Exhibit-2/A: signature of witness on injury report IV. Exhibit-3: A forwarding letter for vaginal swab report V. Exhibit-4: written report VI. Exhibit-4/1: signature of witness on written report. 8. The case of the defence is denial from the occurrence and false implication. Defence has also examined one witness and following documentary evidence:- I. Ext.-A: C/c of F.I.R. of Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 174/1998 & S.C. No. 24/2000. II. Ext.-B: C/c of charge-sheet of Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 174/1998. III. Ext.-C: C/c of F.I.R. of Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 45 of 2003. IV. Ext.-D: C/c of order dated 22.01.2004 of the A.C.J.M. in Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 45 of 2003. V. Ext.-E: C/c of final report of Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 45/2003. VI. Ext.-F: C/c of Protest petition dated 29.08.2003 in Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 45 of 2003. 9. The learned trial court after evaluating the evidence available on record, recorded the findings of guilt of the appellant for the charges under section 376/451 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him accordingly as stated above, which has been assailed in this appeal. Submission on behalf of Appellant:- 10. Assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that except the prosecutrix (PW-7), all other witnesses are hearsay witnesses. It is submitted that most of the witnesses, PW-1 to PW-6 and PW-10 have turned hostile completely and have not supported the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted that the 2026:JHHC:24536 4 | P a g e investigating officer of this case has not been examined during the trial. Therefore the prosecution case rests upon the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-7) alone, which has been made basis for conviction of the appellant. The prosecutrix was a major girl aged about 22 years at the time of occurrence. It is further submitted that the appellant has falsely been implicated because he has to give evidence on a murder case in the court. It is further submitted that the appellant has remained in custody for three years out of seven years of imprisonment awarded by the learned Trial Court. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the charges under section 376/451 of the I.P.C. be set aside and this appeal may be allowed. Submission on behalf of State:- 11. On the other hand, learned Special P. P., refuting the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellant, has submitted that the prosecutrix in her examination-in-chief has categorically proved her version as contained in the written report. It is further submitted that the doctor who examined the prosecutrix has fully supported the commission of rape. As such, the learned Trial Court has rightly acted upon the testimony of the prosecutrix as testified in her examination-in- chief. There is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution story and no valid reason has been explained by the defence for false implication of the accused. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant calling for any interference in this appeal, which is devoid of merit and fit to be dismissed. 2026:JHHC:24536 5 | P a g e 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 of 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 that out of ten witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW-1 to 6 and PW-10 have been declared hostile by the prosecution and PW-7 is the informant-cum-victim of this case. She has deposed that in the night, when she came out from her house, suddenly the accused caught hold of her and when she tried to raise alarm, the accused gagged her mouth with cloth and committed rape on her and fled away. Thereafter, she raised alarm and her paternal uncle and brother came. On that day her father and mother had gone to Bhagalpur. Her brother was in neighbor's house. In her cross-examination, victim has stated that house of the accused is situated just one house away from her house. Her nephew aged about 6-7 year was sleeping with her. She has further deposed that her brother and uncle came after the accused fled away. She has denied the suggestion of defence that she has instituted the instant case at the instance of anybody else. PW-8 Dr. Punam Singh examined the prosecutrix on 10.07.2001 and found the following injury on her persons:- 2026:JHHC:24536 6 | P a g e i. Single cresentic abrasion caused by finger nail ½" x 1/8" on the middle of medial surface of right forearms. ii. Scratch 1" x 1/8" over the left eye caused by hard and blunt substance. iii. Tenderness over the right shoulder caused by hard and blunt substance. Old blood stain on the spot and sticky spots on the under garments of the prosecutrix was found. After receiving veginal swab report, doctor (PW-8) has stated that she found the evidence of sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. PW-9 Nara Chandra Saha is a formal witness. He is an advocate's clerk. He has proved the written report submitted by the prosecutrix in the police station which was written by him. In his cross-examination, he has stated that officer-in-charge dictated the contents and he wrote the same. He has further stated that he has no personal knowledge about the case. 16. It is trite that the testimony of prosecutrix appears to be wholly reliable and unblemished. The medical officer has also cleared his view with regard to sexual intercourse upon the prosecutrix with the help fo veginal swab report. The conviction can be made on uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix witnesses. In the case of “Krishan Kumar Malik vs. State of Haryana, as reported in (2011) 7 SCC 130, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that to hold an accused guilty for commission of an offence of rape, the solitary evidence of prosecutrix is sufficient, provided the same inspires 2026:JHHC:24536 7 | P a g e confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of sterling quality. In the instant case, after evaluating the deposition of victim alongwith the deposition of medical officer, I am of the opinion that victim is absolutely trustworthy and unblemished. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court has rightly held the appellant guilty under Section 376 of the I.P.C. which is hereby upheld. 17. So far Section 451 of the I.P.C. is concerned, it is pertinent that the occurrence took place in the house of the prosecutrix, who went outside in the night and suddenly the appellant caught hold of her, dragged her into the room and committed rape upon her. Therefore, conviction under Section 451 I.P.C. is also upheld. 18. So far as sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court to the appellant is concerned, the appellant has remained in custody for more than three years out of seven years of imprisonment. The occurrence is of the year 2001 and more than two decades have been elapsed. Both the prosecutrix and the appellant have settled in their life. Therefore, it does not appear to be reasonable to stick upon the sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court rather in the facts and circumstance of the case, the imprisonment already undergone by the appellant appears to be sufficient punishment for his guilt in the peculiar facts and circumstance of the case. 19. In view of above discussion and reasons, this appeal is dismissed with modification in sentence as stated above. 20. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands disposed of. 2026:JHHC:24536 8 | P a g e 21. The appellant is on bail. He is discharged from liability of bail bond and sureties are also discharged. 22. 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: 14/08/2026 Rahul- NAFR Uploaded On: 17/08/2026