2026:JHHC:24330 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 772 of 2009 [Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 24.07.2009, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat in Sessions Trial No. 25 of 1998] -------- Sanjay Kumar Ram @ Bhalu, S/o Late Bishwa Nath Ram, resident of Village-Bandh Colloney, P.O. & P.S.-Gomia, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand ... ... Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Appellant : Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate Mr. Harsh Chandra, Advocate Mr. Shashank Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, Spl.P.P. -------- JUDGMENT Dated: 13th August, 2026 By Court: Heard Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, learned Spl.P.P. for the State. 2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 24.07.2009, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat in Sessions Trial No. 25 of 1998, 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 R.I. for five years along with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation. Factual Matrix 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 21.05.1996 at about 3:30 P.M., while the informant Tapu Kumar Rajwar (P.W.-4) was returning to his house from his betel shop, he saw the accused Sanjay Kumar Ram @ Bhalu, committing rape upon his younger sister, aged about 5 years, in the toilet room situated behind the quarter 2026:JHHC:24330 2 in the campus of one Kati Turi (not examined), after opening her pant. It is further alleged that the said accused, on seeing the informant, fled away. His sister was weeping. She told the informant that the accused by alluring her with an offer of money, had taken her to the toilet room of Kati Turi and was committing the offence. He has further stated that Chhotku Singh (P.W.-6), Laxman Yadav (not examined), Sanjay Singh (P.W.-5) had seen and heard about the occurrence. The informant was waiting for the arrival of his father, who had gone to Kolkata. Thereafter, he reached to O.P. Kathara on 22.05.1996 to lodge the F.I.R. and submitted written information to the Officer-in-charge of Kathara O.P., who forwarded the same to Gumla P.S. for instituting a case under Section 376 of the I.P.C. The Officer-in-charge himself took up the investigation. On the basis of above information, Gomia P.S. Case No. 70 of 1996 dated 22.05.1996 was registered for the offence under Section 376 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 Trial No. 25 of 1998 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 6 witnesses were examined by the prosecution apart from documentary evidence. 6. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been 2026:JHHC:24330 3 adduced by the defence. The case of defence is denial from occurrence, plea of 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 counsel 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 R.I. for five years. It is further submitted that the occurrence is of the year 1996 and now more than three decades have passed from the date of occurrence. The appellant was granted bail during pendency of this appeal vide order dated 10.09.2009. It is also submitted that the appellant has no criminal background rather it is alleged that he attempted to commit rape with a child of 5 years old. The appellant has remained in custody for about 5 months and has sufficiently been punished for his guilt. Learned counsel submits that the factual background of the prosecution case and the medical examination report of the victim girl showed that her hymen was intact, although some scratches and abrasions were found. Therefore, at best the offence committed by the appellant falls under Section 354 of the I.P.C. 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 2026:JHHC:24330 4 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 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. From the evidence, it appears that victim P.W.-2 in her deposition had stated that accused untied her undergarment then she started weeping. She has further stated that accused indulged in doing nasty work with her. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that her parents and brother have told her the aforesaid fact. While the brother of victim (informant) has stated that he had not seen the actual offence of rape rather he has simply seen that pant of her sister was opened and she was weeping. P.W.-3, Dr. Upendra Prasad, who has medically examined the victim had found bruise over right labia mazora, vulva opening inflamed and painful, however, the hymen was found intact. The Medical Officer has opined that vaginal penetration has not taken place. 12. Thus, the evidences on record clearly establishes that the 2026:JHHC:24330 5 appellant had assaulted and used criminal force upon the minor victim with the intent to outrage her modesty, therefore, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 376/511 of the I.P.C. is hereby altered and modified to under Section 354 of the I.P.C. 13. 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 three 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 5 months during the trial of the case. Therefore, he is sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone by him. 14. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in conviction and sentence as stated above. 15. Appellant is on bail, as such he is discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties are also discharged. 16. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly. 17. 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.) 13.08.2026 Arpit Uploaded on 17/08/2026