2026:JHHC:26749 IN THE HIGH COURT OFJHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1058 of 2005 --------- [Against the judgment of conviction 02.08.2005 and sentence dated 03.08.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Jamtara in Sessions Case No. 78 of 2004 arising out of P.C.R. Case No. 238 of 2003.] --------- Rahman Mian, Son of late Jarib Mian, Resident of Village- Koidiha, P.S.- Narayanpur, District- Jamtara (Jharkhand). ……Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. X, through her husband Siddique Mian, R/o. vill.- Koidiha, P.S. Narayanpur, Dist.- Jamtara. …. Respondents --------- For the Appellant : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Naveen Kr. Ganjhu, A.P.P. ----------- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT ----------- CAV On: 24th August, 2026 Pronounced On: 31/08/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.P.P. 2. Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 02.08.2005 and sentence dated 03.08.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Jamtara in Sessions Case No. 78 of 2004 arising out of P.C.R. Case No. 238 of 2003, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 376/511 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 years alongwith the fine of Rs. 500/-with default stipulation. Factual Matrix:- 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 31.07.2003 at about 7:00 P.M., the victim was preparing her dinner for night. All of sudden, the accused entered into the house of the victim and asked 2026:JHHC:26749 2 | P a g e where about of her husband. She replied that her husband had gone outside. The accused, after knowing that victim's husband is not there, caught hold the victim from behind and put her down and thereafter, he forcibly tried to commit rape on her. When the victim tried to raise alarm, the accused assaulted her by fists and slaps and took out a tangi of dire consequences. In the meantime, father-in-law of the victim and other witnesses came there and saved the victim. The accused fled away after seeing the witnesses coming there to rescue her. On next morning, for the aforesaid occurrence, the victim lodged written information before police against the accused and the police assured the victim to start substantive criminal case. The police did not institute the case. On 11.08.2003, she submitted an application before the S.P., Jamtara regarding non-institution of the case by police but no action was taken. 4. Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint before the Court being P.C.R. Case No. 237 of 2003 on 21.08.2003. After taking cognizance of the case, the Court issued summon to the accused under Section 376/511 of the I.P.C. 5. The accused appeared to the summons and contested the case before the learned Trial Court. 6. In the course of trial, altogether six witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and Ext.1 as documentary evidence has been examined. 7. On the other hand, defence has also examined one witness, namely, DW-1 Dubraj Prasad Rai, who has proved the signature and writing of Kishori Chowdhary, the then Munshi of Narayanpur P.S., on the report 2026:JHHC:26749 3 | P a g e submitted to the officer in-charge of Narayanpur Police Station in the case of victim marked Ext.- A & A/1. 8. As such, the case of defence is denial from the occurrence and false implication due to dispute had arisen over the cutting of ridge in the field for water irrigation and prosecution wanted to grab the land of accused, so with intention to putting pressure upon the accuse, he has been falsely implicated. 9. The learned Trial Court after scrutinizing the evidence oral as well as documentary led by the respective parties, arrived at definite conclusion about the guilt of the appellant for the offence under Section 376/511 of the I.P.C. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above, which has been assailed in this appeal. Submission on behalf of appellant:- 10. Assailing the impugned judgment, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated properly the earliest version of the victim stated in her written report, which was submitted before the police station on 01.08.2003. The learned Trial Court has only appreciated the complaint petition filed before the Court and arrived at conclusion under Section 376/511 against the appellant. It is further submitted that on perusal of the written report filed before the police station, wherein, the victim lady has alleged the date of occurrence to be on 31.07.2003 at about 4:00 P.M. and has made allegation that there is dispute with regard to the cutting of ridge in the field for water irrigation, whereas, on perusal of the complaint petition filed before the Court also suggested the date of 2026:JHHC:26749 4 | P a g e occurrence to be 31.07.2003 with allegation of the attempt to commit rape and she reported to the police station on 01.08.2003 but in her report submitted to the police, there is no whisper about the attempt to commit rape on her, which is totally contradictory statement and it proved to be false allegation has been levelled against the accused in the complaint petition. The complaint petition has been filed on 21.08.2003, which also reveals that there is delay of 20 days from the date of occurrence. It is further submitted that there are many contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. It is also submitted that appellant has falsely been implicated in this case with a view to take revenge from him due to prior enmity existing between both the parties for last many years. It is also submitted that the entire body of prosecution witnesses consists of person who are either closely related to the complainant or who have independent, admitted cross-litigation and disputes. Therefore, conviction and sentence of the appellant is liable to be set aside and this appeal may be allowed. Submission on behalf of State:- 11. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant and defending the impugned judgment has submitted that the learned Trial Court has very wisely and aptly scrutinized the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The plea of delay in lodging F.I.R. has sufficiently been explained by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the appellant in preplanned way, after taking advantage of the absence of the husband of the victim, attempted to commit rape on the victim. In the meantime, father-in-law of the victim and other witnesses came there and saved her. Therefore, there is no 2026:JHHC:26749 5 | P a g e 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 merits and fit to be dismissed. 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 or 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. The most important witness in this case is the prosecutrix (victim), who has been examined as PW-4. According to her evidence, on date of occurrence at about 7:00 P.M., she was burning the woven to prepare dinner. Her husband had gone to Dhanbad and father-in-law Ami Mian (PW-2) was grazing cattle. Her son had gone for wood cutting. Suddenly, the accused came to her house and asked where about of her husband and she replied, "he has gone to dhanbad." Thereafter, the accused fell her down with an intention to rape her. She raised halla but the accused gagged her mouth and threatened to kill by tangi. The accused tried to commit rape but on alarm Rafique Mian (PW-5), Amin Mian (PW-2), Wasir Mian (PW-3), Chutu Mian (PW-1) arrived there. She was siting naked at that time. The accused fled away. These persons gave clothes to her and she covered her body. She stated about the occurrence to her father-in-law and other witnesses. She has further 2026:JHHC:26749 6 | P a g e stated that the accused was chasing her for last two year with a view to defame her. She has further deposed that she went to the police station with her father-in-law and others. She made statement before police and police assured to lodge a case but police office did not lodge the case. She went the S.P. but nothing happened. Thereafter, she filed the case in the court. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she was married 20 years ago. She has four sons and two daughters. Her father-in-law is Amin Mian. She has denied that she had filed a rape case against her father-in-law. Her father Suleman Mian resides in the same village and he lives at a distance of 3-4 houses from her sasural. She has denied the knowledge of institution of a case against the accused by her father-in- law when the accused was constructing a house on plot no. 9. She further states in her cross-examination that the accused left the tangi there. She again states that Rafique Mian, Wasir Mian, Amin Mian and Chutu Mina took out tangi from the accused. In a Court question that these people have caught the accused. She replies that after catching the accused they took out the tangi and then the accused fled away. She has denied that no such occurrence has taken place rather there was a dispute over the matter of water in the field. PW-1 Chotu Mian @ Chutu Mian has seen the accused with tangi in his hand and he had saved the victim. At first, this witness came there and also raised alarm then other witnesses came there. Husband of the victim had gone to Dhanbad. When police officer did not do anything, then she filed case in court. 2026:JHHC:26749 7 | P a g e In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he has seen the accused naked and his clothes were left in the house of victim and the accused fled away naked. This witness admits that his brother Islam Mian had filed a case earlier against the accused under Section 436 I.P.C., which was false case verified by Dy.S.P. This witness further expresses no knowledge about a case lodged by his father against the accused. PW-2 Amin Mian has stated that he was gazing the cattle. Rafique was also there with him. His daughter-in-law was alone in the house. She was preparing food. On hearing hulla, he went to the house. The door was open and the accused was inside the house. The accused tried to commit rape by tearing cloths. Cloth of the accused was also open. He further states that on seeing him, the accused took out tangi and said, "he would kill him don't raise alarm". When other witness went with him, then the accused fled inside a makka-field. In his cross-examination, this witness states that the accused is his nephew. He admits that this witness and the family of accused are in litigating terms with regard to land dispute. He further admits that he had given an application to the police station when the accused was building his house at plot no. 9. He further admits that his son Sidique Mian had filed a police case against brother of the accused. This witness further states in his cross examination that victim has four sons and two girls. Marriage of the elder son of the victim has also been solemnized one and half years before. PW-3 Wasir Mian was on the way to shop at the time of occurrence. He heard sound from the house of victim and went there and 2026:JHHC:26749 8 | P a g e saw Rafique Mian (PW-5) and Chotu Mian (PW-1). The victim was sitting and weeping and there was not cloth on her body. On quarry, she told that the accused tried to rape her. At that time, the accused had gone from the house but he had seen him going out. The accused had wrapped his lungi and there was an axe in his hand. In his cross examination, he admits that the accused had a dispute with brother of this witness and Hannan Mian had filed a case under Section 307 I.P.C. against him. He further states that there are 10-12 houses between the house of the accused and the victim. PW-5 Rafique Mian has stated in deposition that on hearing sound of save-save, he alongwith Amin Mian (PW-2) went there. Chotu Mian (PW-1) and Wasir Mian (PW-3) also went there. Door was open. He saw that there was scuffle between the victim and the accused. The blouse of the victim was torn. He saw that the accused escaped with catching hold of his lungi by one hand and an axe by another hand. The victim told that the accused came and asked where about her husband and when she told that her husband had gone to Dhanbad, he wanted to commit rape on her. In his cross-examination, this witness states that before the enquiry officer, he has stated that he reached the place of occurrence before Amin Mian (2), father in law of the victim. Amin Mian is the brother of this witness. He denies the suggestion of defence that daughter of Amin Mian had filed a case against him rather there was dispute for money transaction. This witness also admits that there was disputed between father in law of the victim and the accused. 2026:JHHC:26749 9 | P a g e PW-6 Byomkesh Padern has proved the complaint petition drafted by Surujeet Mukherjee, advocate and signed by him on each page. Complaint petitioner is marked Ext.-1. 16. On the other hand, the case of defence is denial from the occurrence and one witness has also been examined on behalf of the defence. DW-1 Dubraj Pd. Rai has proved the certified copy of written report and the alleged incident dated 31.07.2003 at about 4:00 P.M. lodged before the officer in-charge, Narayanpur police station, which is marked Ext.-A and the endorsement for enquiry and necessary action made by A.S.I. Shashi Kr. Singh as Ext.- A/1. 17. I have given anxious consideration to the overall aspects of the case and the documentary evidence available on record. 18. It appears that complaint case no. 238 of 2003 was instituted before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara on 21.08.2003, wherein, it is specifically stated by the complainant that on 31.07.2003 at about 7:00 P.M., complainant was preparing for cooking night meal, then the present appellant visited her house and finding her alone, inquired about her husband and when she told that he has gone to Dhanbad, then the accused caught hold of her, thrashed her on ground and forcibly tried to commit rape on her after removing he saree and saya. When the complainant raised alarm for rescue, she was assaulted by fist and slaps and also threatened to kill by taking out a tangi kept in the house of the complainant. The accused after removing her saree and saya and tearing her blouse, wanted to penetrate his male organ on the private part of the complainant with a view to commit rape. Merely, on her raising alarm, her father-in-law Amin Mian (PW-2) and other 2026:JHHC:26749 10 | P a g e witnesses arrived and saved her. The complainant in her deposition as PW-4 has simply stated that the accused thrashed her on ground and removed her clothes and forcibly attempted to commit rape with her, wherein, her father in law and other witnesses arrived there on her raising alarm. She was sitting in naked condition and the accused fled away. She also admits that she went to lodge the case at police station alongwith her father in law and she also reported at the police station and the police officer assured her that case will be lodged and proceeded but no action was taken, then she went to the Superintendent of police but no action was taken there also, then she lodged the complaint case. 19. At this juncture, it is relevant to discuss the contents of Ext.-A, which has been exhibited without objection and also admitted by the complainant that she lodged the written report before the police station, which goes to show that on 31.07.2003 at about 4:00 P.M., she was taking water by cutting ridge of field of the accused Rahman Mian for irrigating her own field for plantation of paddy crop. In the meantime, Rahman Mian arrived and started abusing her in filthy language and forbade her from cutting the ridge and taking water from his field. She told that she has to plant paddy crop and there is deficiency of water in her field but the accused closed the ridge and stopped water flowing in her field and also abused in filthy language and threatened her, then she came back to her home and complained to her father in law about the incident. 20. It is quite obvious that the complaint case was lodged after 20 days of the occurrence with allegation of attempt to rape with the complainant by the present appellant. In her cross-examination, it is also 2026:JHHC:26749 11 | P a g e apparent that complainant was married about 20 years ago prior to this occurrence having four sons and two daughters. She also reiterates that after lodging written report by her in the police station, police arrived at her village and recorded her statement but no action was taken against the accused. She also admits inimical terms between the father in law and the accused at the time of construction of home by the accused. The content of complaint case was also dictated by her father in law as admitted in her cross-examination. Admittedly, other witnesses arrived at the place of occurrence when the accused managed to flee away and the accused was only seen of fleeing away by rest of the witnesses. 21. It further transpires that the learned Trial Court has heavily relied upon the testimony of the complainant as a basis of conviction of the appellant. There is no doubt that sole testimony of prosecutrix can be made basis in complaint of offence of rape when she appears to be wholly reliable and her testimony does not suffer from any blemish or otherwise doubtful. 22. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Krishna Kumar Malik vs. State of Haryana (2011) 7 SCC 130, it is observed and held by Hon'ble Apex Court that no doubt, it is true that to hold an accused guilty for commission of an offence of rape, the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient provided the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of sterling quality. 23. In the instant case, the genesis of the occurrence is dispute about irrigation of field by cutting ridge of the field of the appellant. Initially, the written report (Ext.-A) was lodged by the complainant without 2026:JHHC:26749 12 | P a g e whispering about any attempt of commission of rape with her at the instance of accused rather some altercation took place due to stoppage of water and closing the ridge of the field of the accused by him and consequential abusive words. The complaint was lodged on dictation of father in law of the complainant with legal frame as per advice of advocate, wherein the whole spectrum was materially changed not only this but the complainant has also exaggerated the event in her testimony before Court by stating the manner in which the accused attempted to commit rape with her overpowering her at house by tangi. Therefore, her evidence appears to be in consistent with chain of circumstances of this case rather her testimony appears to be tainted with false in order to implicate the appellant for a serious offence. Therefore, the manner in which the occurrence is said to have occurred is not believable at all. 24. In view of above background of the case, the solitary testimony of prosecutrix cannot be given any credence and believed to be gospel truth without any independent supporting evidence. 25. It appears that the learned Trial Court has committed serious error of law while believing the testimony of prosecutrix, which suffers from material contradiction and infirmity from the very inception. Therefore, there is no reason to sustain the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant by the learned Trial Court. 26. In view of the above discussion and reasons, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed upon the appellant is hereby set aside. 27. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. 28. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands disposed of. 2026:JHHC:26749 13 | P a g e 29. The appellant is on bail. He is discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties are also discharged. 30. 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: 31/08/2026 Rahul- NAFR Uploaded On: 03/09/2026