( 2026:JHHC:26725-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.66 of 2020 ---- Niraj Panigarahi, son of Late Janardan Panigarahi, resident of village Babhantoli, Koyaldeepa, P.O. and P.S. Basia, District Gumla. ----- Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ----- Respondent ------ PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ------- For the Appellant : Mr. Abhay Kr. Chaturvedy, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Azeemuddin, A.P.P ------- JUDGMENT Dated: 29.08.2026 Per R. Mukhopadhyay, J. 1. Heard Mr. Abhay Kr. Chaturvedy, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 26.08.2019 (sentence passed on 31.08.2019) passed by Sri Lolark Dubey, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I Cum Special Judge, Gumla in S.T. Case No. 303/2013 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 302, 376(2)/201 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 302 IPC and in default in payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one year, rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 376(2) IPC and in default in payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year, rigorous imprisonment for seven years along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 201 IPC and in default in payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. All the 2 sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case arises out of a written report of Biraj Devi in which it has been stated that she works as a maid servant in the hotel of Jidan Guria and the same is her source of livelihood. The informant had two daughters and while one of them had died due to illness, the other daughter aged six years used to stay with her. It has been alleged that on 26.04.2013 the informant was working in the hotel and after completing her work, she searched for her daughter, but she could not be found. In the next morning, the informant had given a missing report to Kamdara P.S. after which the police also started conducting a search. The husband of the informant, on coming to know about the incident, also came back home. In course of search the daughter of Suku Munda had disclosed that she had seen the accused Niraj Panigarahi who was working as a cook in the hotel of Jidan Guria taking away the daughter of the informant. On this information, the informant and others had made enquiry in the house of Niraj Panigarahi but no trace could be found of the missing daughter of the informant. It has been alleged that on 28.04.2013 an information was received that the dead body of a child is lying in a hillock behind the school and when the informant went to the said place, she identified the dead body to be that of her missing daughter. It was suspected that the murder was committed by Niraj Panigarahi. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Kamdara P.S. Case No. 12/2013 was instituted under Sections 376, 302/201 IPC against Niraj Panigarahi. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken, case was committed to the court of sessions where it was registered as S.T.No.303/2013. Charge was framed against the accused under Sections 302, 376(2) and 201 IPC and under Section 6 POCSO Act which was read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses 3 in support of its case. 5. P.W.1 Ajit Guria has stated that on 26.04.2013 at 5.00 p.m., he had gone with his family to attend a fair and he had seen the accused with the daughter of the informant who used to work in a hotel. When he returned to the village, he came to know that the daughter of the informant had not returned back. He has stated that on 28.04.2013 he had come to know about a dead body lying near the Middle School, Kamdara at which he had gone to the said place and found the dead body to be that of the daughter of the informant. From a look of the body, it seemed that she was subjected to rape. In cross-examination, he has deposed that at 5.00 p.m., he had himself seen the accused taking away the child to the fair. There were no other persons accompanying them. His house is situated adjacent to the hotel of Jidan Guria where the accused used to work. In his examination in-chief on recall, he has proved the carbon copy of the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-2. 6. P.W.2 Etwa Sahu has stated that in the fair at Kamdara he was selling eatables and though he had not seen but had heard that the daughter of Lakhnu Baraik is missing and after two days he came to know that she has been murdered and the dead body was thrown in the hillock. He had heard in the fair that the daughter of the informant was brought to the fair by the accused after which she disappeared. The persons who had gathered at the spot where the dead body was found were discussing that the deceased child was subjected to rape. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had heard about the incident. 7. P.W.3 Niraj Kumar alias Niraj Prasad has stated that he had gone to visit the fair at around 5.00-5.30 p.m. when he had seen the accused playing with the daughter of the informant in a swing. After visiting the fair he had returned home and on the next 4 day he had come to know that the daughter of the informant is missing. On 28.04.2013 the dead body of the daughter of the informant was found in the hillock. It seemed that the child was subjected to rape and her face was also crushed with a stone. He has proved his signature in the carbon copy of the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-2/1. In cross-examination he has deposed that the police had prepared the inquest report based on the actual state of the body. 8. P.W.4 Dr. Saurav Prasad was posted as a Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital, Gumla and on 29.04.13 he along with the other members of the Board had conducted post-mortem on the body of the daughter of the informant. He has proved the post- mortem report which has been marked as Exhibit-1. In cross-examination he has deposed that he was a member of the Medical Board which conducted the post-mortem examination. 9. P.W.5 Lakhu Barahi is the father of the deceased. On the date of occurrence his wife was working in the hotel of Jidan Guria and his 6-year-old daughter was with her. The accused used to work in the same hotel as a cook. The accused had enticed away his daughter on the pretext of going to the fair but she did not return and despite a search when she could not be traced out, his wife had given a written report to the police station. He has proved the written report which has been marked as Exhibit-3. After 2-3 days a dead body of a child was found near the Middle School and he had gone to the place of occurrence and identified the dead body to be that of his daughter. The police had come on information and had prepared the inquest report after which the dead body was sent for conducting post-mortem. He has stated that after the incident his wife had disclosed that the accused had wanted her to leave her husband with an assurance that he would provide her with the same amount of money as was given to her by her husband. In cross-examination he has deposed that he had seen 5 the accused taking away his daughter to visit the fair at 4.30 pm. 10. P.W.6 Biraj Devi is the informant and the mother of the deceased who has stated that she was working as a maid servant in the hotel of Jidan Gudia and her 6 year old daughter also stayed with her. The accused was working in the same hotel as a cook. She has stated that the accused had taken her daughter to visit the fair at 5.30 p.m. but she did not return and despite conducting a search she could not be traced out. After 3 days she came to know that her daughter has been raped and murdered and her body was found in the hillock after which she went to the place of occurrence with her husband and villagers and found the face of her daughter crushed with a stone and there were severe injuries in her private part. After the police came, the written report was prepared in which she had put her thumb impression which has been marked as ‘X’ for identification. The police had sent the body for post- mortem. In cross-examination she has deposed that there was no previous enmity with the accused. 11. P.W.7 Dr. Asha Ekka was posted as a Medical Officer in Sadar Hospital, Gumla and on 29.04.2013 the Medical Board had conducted autopsy on the dead body of the daughter of the informant and had found the following:- “Condition of the dead body:- 1. Rigor mortis not present in any of the fore-limbs. 2. Brain matter was not liquefied. 3. Magots present over the entire body. Injuries:-1. Crush lacerated wound over the left temporal region of skull size:-6 inch x 3 inch into brain deep. On dissection there was fracture of skull bone, all brain matters coming out from the fractured portion of skull. 2. Crush lacerated wound over the right temporal region of skull, size:- 6 inch x 2 inch, into brain deep. On dissection there was fracture of underlying skull bone. Brain matter was coming out from the fractured portion of skull. 3. Lacerated wound over the upper portion of left thigh, size:- 4 inch x 3 inch into bone deep. On 6 dissection there was fracture of underlying femur bone. Blood clot was present. Finding:- Lungs was pale. Hearts all chambers empty. Large blood vessels collapsed. Mouth open. Teeth intact, eusophagus pale, stomach empty, small intestine pale. Fecal matter and gas were present in large intestine. Liver pale, spleen pale. Kidney pale. In urinary bladder residual urin was present. Genital organ:- hyman ruptured, multiple tears and lacerations present in vegina. On microscopical examination of veginal swab:- no spermatozoa found, due to delay.” The cause of death was opined to be due to shock and haemorrhage. The injuries were caused by hard and blunt object and all the injuries were grievous in nature. She has proved the signature of the members of the Medical Board upon the post- mortem report which has been marked as Exhibit-1/1. On a court question she has deposed that the victim was subjected to rape and thereafter murdered. 12. P.W.8 Dinesh Prasad Rajak was posted as a Sub- Inspector of Police in Kamdara P.S. and on 28.04.2013 he was handed over the investigation of Kamdara P.S. Case No. 12 of 2013. He has proved the handwriting and signature of the Officer In- charge in the endorsement in the written report which has been marked as Exhibit-3/1. He has proved the formal F.I.R. which has been marked as Exhibit-4. On reaching the place of occurrence the inquest report was prepared. The signature on the inquest report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2/2. He had recorded the restatement of the informant and had also inspected the place of occurrence which is a lonely place near the Middle School. He had recorded the statement of the witnesses who all have supported the allegations. He had obtained the post-mortem report. He had arrested the accused in Odisha. The transit remand has been proved and marked as Exhibit-5. He has proved the arrest memo which has been marked as Exhibit-6. He had recorded the statement of the accused. On completion of investigation he had 7 submitted charge sheet. The charge sheet has been proved and marked as Exhibit-7. In cross-examination he has deposed that the incident had taken place in a lonely spot in the jungle. 13. P.W.9 Geeta Kumari has stated that at the time of the incident she was in her house and at 4.00 p.m. she had seen the accused with a girl. The accused had come to her house and wanted liquor and when she retorted that she does not prepare liquor he went away. After 3 days there was an alarm in the village that the body of a girl has been found in a hillock and she had also gone to the said place where the body of the daughter of the informant was found lying. The accused works in the hotel of Jidan Guria as a cook while the informant cleans utensils. After the occurrence the accused had fled to Odisha from where he was arrested by the police. In cross-examination she has deposed that in her statement before police she had stated about seeing the accused taking away a girl. 14. P.W.10 Dr. Javed Anwar was posted as a Medical Officer in Sadar Hospital, Gumla and he was heading the Medical Board which had conducted autopsy on the dead body of the daughter of the informant. He has proved the signatures of the other members of the Medical Board which has been marked as Exhibit-1/2. 15. P.W.11 Asha Barwa was posted as a Headmistress of Middle School, Kamdara since 16.08.2015. She has proved serial number 16 at page 3-4 of the admission register of the school which has been marked as Exhibit-8. She has proved the certificate issued by her regarding the date of birth of the deceased which has been marked as Exhibit-9. 16. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he has denied his complicity in the commission of the offence. 17. The defence has examined two witnesses in its support. 18. D.W.1 Niraj Panigarahi is the accused who has stated 8 that at the time of the occurrence he was in his house at Babhantola, Basia. He had not gone to watch the fair. He has stated that he does not consume liquor. He has also stated that he does not know anyone by the name of Shivani. In cross-examination he has deposed that at the time of the incident he was working as a cook in the hotel of Jidan Gudia. The mother of the deceased used to work in the same hotel and her daughter used to stay with her. 19. D.W.2 Niranjan Panigarahi is the brother of the accused who has stated that on 26.04.2013 his brother was in his house. In cross-examination he has deposed that wife of the accused stays in Odisha. He does not know as to where the in-laws of the accused stay. He also does not know that the accused has two children. 20. It has been submitted by Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been implicated primarily on the basis of suspicion. There are no eye-witnesses to the occurrence and only on the basis of last seen theory the appellant has been convicted. There are no witnesses of the prosecution who could vouch of the presence of the appellant and the deceased near the place of occurrence. It has been submitted that the dead body was not recovered in close proximity to the deceased having been last seen with the appellant and on such score itself the last seen theory fails. The owner of the hotel has not been examined to ascertain as to whether the appellant was working in his hotel on the date of occurrence and in fact the plea of alibi as raised by the defence has also not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court. 21. Mr. Azeemuddin, learned A.P.P. has submitted that the last seen theory and the conduct of the appellant after the incident is itself sufficient proof about the involvement of the appellant in committing the rape and murder of the daughter of the informant. 22. We have heard learned counsel for the respective sides and have also perused the trial court records. 9 23. The daughter of the informant, who stayed with the informant, disappeared on 26.04.2013 and on 28.04.2013 her dead body in a mutilated condition was recovered from a hillock near the Middle School. The informant worked in the hotel of Jidan Guria as a maidservant and so did the appellant who was engaged as a cook. There is nothing on record to indicate that the appellant was not an employee of the said hotel on the date of occurrence even though the owner of the hotel was not examined. Admittedly, there are no eyewitnesses to the occurrence and the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence of the deceased being last seen with the appellant in the fair. The last seen theory has been propounded by P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.5 as all three had earlier seen both of them in the fair or the appellant taking the deceased to the fair. A different version has been given by P.W.9 who has stated that the appellant had come to her house to purchase liquor and a girl was with him and the time of her seeing both of them together almost coincides with the disappearance of the deceased. The appellant was well acquainted with the informant and the deceased since the appellant and the informant used to work in the same hotel. Despite this, the appellant who has examined himself as D.W.1, has feigned ignorance about knowing the daughter of the informant but in his cross-examination he has stated otherwise. The contradictory evidence of the appellant is a weak attempt to wriggle out of the situation he has found himself in. The dead body of the daughter of the informant was recovered within two days of her disappearance which would strengthen the last seen theory attributed to the appellant. The defence has failed to evince even an iota of contradiction in the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.5 and P.W.9 and such evidence convincingly and unequivocally establishes that the deceased was last seen with the appellant. D.W.2, who happens to be the brother of the appellant, has tried to raise a plea of alibi by stating that the appellant was in his house on 26.04.2013 but the veracity and truthfulness of such evidence can be ascertained from the fact that he does not even know how 10 many children the appellant had and the in-laws place of the appellant despite being the own brother of the appellant and the plea of alibi in the backdrop of the overwhelming materials on record falters and no reliance can be placed on such defence. The other aspect of the case is the conduct of the appellant. On coming to know about the incident, a search was conducted of the appellant who was the main suspect but he had absconded and fled to Odisha from where he was arrested. No reasonable explanation has been furnished by the appellant in his 313 Cr.P.C statement as to why and how he had landed up in Odisha all of a sudden despite plying his trade in Basia. 24. On an overall conspectus of the case, it clearly transpires that it was the appellant who was instrumental in committing rape and murder of the six-year-old daughter of the informant, the brutality of such act being stark on the face of the autopsy report. The learned trial court having considered the materials available on record in an appropriate fashion we do not find any reason to conclude otherwise and consequently we dismiss this appeal. 25. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands closed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Dated: 29th August 2026 Shamim/- Uploaded on: 03 /09/2026