2026:JHHC:24535 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 389 of 2006 [Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.01.2006 & 01.02.2006 respectively, passed by learned 3rd Additional District & Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Dumka in Sessions Case No. 229 of 2005] -------- Dana Dehri, S/o Kanahi Dehri, resident of Village-Lada Lakhanpur, P.S.- Kathikund, District-Dumka ... ... Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Appellant : Mr. Yogesh Modi, Amicus Curiae For the State : Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, Spl.P.P. -------- JUDGMENT Dated: 14th August, 2026 By Court: Heard Mr. Yogesh Modi, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, learned Spl.P.P. for the State. 2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.01.2006 & 01.02.2006 respectively, passed by learned 3rd Additional District & Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Dumka in Sessions Case No. 229 of 2005, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Sections 376/511 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for five years. Factual Matrix 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 31.08.2005, the informant had gone from Village-Ledapathar to Village-Porraiyadih in connection with the work of her organization. At about 4 o’clock in the evening, she was returning on foot from Poraiyadih to Ledapathar via Lakhanpur. As she was not familiar with the proper route, she was proceeding by asking the route. One person was walking ahead of her 2026:JHHC:24535 2 towards Village-Ledapathar, when she reached near a bush in a solitary place at about 5:00 P.M., near Village Ledapathar, the said person suddenly turned back and caught hold of her and threw her to the ground. He intended to commit rape upon her. She raised an alarm, but the said person pressed her mouth and neck. However, she somehow managed to escape and started running away while raising an alarm. In the meantime, three boys came from the direction of Ledapathar, caught hold of the said person and took him to Village-Ledapathar at the house of Village Pradhan, Barmeshwar Marandi. When the villagers asked him about his identity, he disclosed his name as Dana Dehri son of Kahnai Dehri. The informant stated that she had become nervous due to the occurrence, therefore there was a delay in her coming to the police station. On the basis of above information, Kathikund P.S. Case No. 29 of 2005 dated 01.09.2005 was registered for the offence under Section 376/511 of the I.P.C. against the accused. 4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused for the aforesaid offence. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and subsequently, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where Sessions Case No. 229 of 2005 was registered. The charge was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In the course of trial, altogether 8 witnesses were examined by the prosecution apart from documentary evidence. 6. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been 2026:JHHC:24535 3 adduced by the defence. The case of defence is denial from occurrence and pleaded innocence and false implication. 7. After conclusion of trial, the appellant was held guilty for the offence under Sections 376/511 of the I.P.C. and sentenced as stated above which has been assailed in this appeal. Submissions on behalf of appellant: - 8. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant without touching the merits of the judgment has submitted that the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Sections 376/511 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for five years. He further submits that the occurrence is of the year 2005 and now more than two decades have passed from the date of occurrence. The appellant was granted bail during pendency of this appeal vide order dated 18.10.2006. It is also submitted that the appellant has no criminal background and has remained in custody for about 1 year 2 months. It is further submitted that the nature of the allegations and the circumstances of the case at the highest warrant conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 354 of the I.P.C. for which the period already undergone may be treated as sufficient punishment. It is further submitted that during the pendency of this appeal, the appellant has maintained his good conduct and behaviour without involving himself in any other criminal activity, therefore he has sufficiently been punished for his guilt under Section 354 of the I.P.C. Submissions on behalf of State: - 9. On the other hand, learned Spl.P.P. has defended the impugned 2026:JHHC:24535 4 judgment of conviction and order of sentence on merits and submitted that the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant and there is no merit in this appeal which is fit to be dismissed. Analysis, discussions and reasons:- 10. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order along with the record of the case in the light of rival contentions of the learned counsel for the respective parties. 11. It appears that the evidence on record does not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had gone beyond an assault upon the informant and had performed such acts with the requisite intention and proximity constituting an attempt to commit rape. P.Ws.-2 and 4 are not eyewitnesses to the entire occurrence and reached the spot only after hearing the alarm. Thus, while their evidence corroborates the immediate aftermath of the occurrence, it does not establish the complete sequence of acts alleged to have been committed with the specific intention of completing sexual intercourse. 12. At the same time, the evidence of P.W.-1 cannot be discarded insofar as the assault upon her is concerned. The act of the appellant and the surrounding circumstances also clearly indicate that such acts were committed with the intention or at least with the knowledge that the modesty of the informant was likely to be outraged. The essential ingredients of Section 354 of the I.P.C. are, therefore, clearly made out. 13. Thus, the evidence on record establishes a case of assault and use of criminal force upon the informant with the requisite intention or knowledge contemplated under Section 354 of the I.P.C. 2026:JHHC:24535 5 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Sections 376/511 of the I.P.C. is hereby altered and modified to under Section 354 of the I.P.C. 15. So far sentence of the appellant is concerned, it appears that it was the first offence of the appellant and he was never convicted for any offence as is apparent from the impugned judgment. Further, more than two decades have elapsed from the date of commission of the alleged offence, therefore, considering the offence committed by the appellant, his age, character and antecedent, it appears expedient in the ends of justice to award him sentence of imprisonment already undergone by him i.e. about 1 year 2 months during the trial of the case. Therefore, he is sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone by him. 16. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in conviction and sentence as stated above. 17. Appellant is on bail, as such he is discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties are also discharged. 18. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly. 19. I take this opportunity to appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr. Yogesh Modi, learned Amicus Curiae and direct the Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee to extend the stipulated fees as per notification of High Court Legal Services Committee to Mr. Yogesh Modi, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 2026:JHHC:24535 6 20. Office is directed to ensure that a copy of this order is served upon Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee. 21. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) 14.08.2026 Arpit Uploaded on 18/08/2026