2026:JHHC:9534 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.365 of 2022 --------- [Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 26th April, 2022, passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge - X, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No.143 of 2014, arising out of Dhanbad P.S. Case No.1019 of 2013] --------- Dinesh Yadav, aged about 36 years, son of Surendra Yadav, resident of new Bishunpur Behind Bishunpur Durga Mandir, P.O & P.S Dhanbad, District Dhanbad. ….. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent --------- PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR --------- For the Appellant : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P --------- Order No.05/ Dated: 06 th April, 2026 1. Heard Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Special P.P. 2. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.04.2022, passed by the learned District & Additional Session Judge – X, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No.143 of 2014, arising out of Dhanbad P.S. Case No.1019 of 2013 (G.R. No.4361 of 2013), whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the convict has to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. - 1 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.365 of 2022 2026:JHHC:9534 3. The criminal law has been put into motion by lodging an F.I.R being Dhanbad P.S. Case No.1019 of 2013 dated 19.10.2013 for the incident dated 16.10.2013. The prosecution story as disclosed in the F.I.R is that at around 09:00 P.M on 16.10.2013, the appellant-accused had went to the house of the victim and on the pretext of phone call of her husband, he got the door opened and thereafter he entered into the house of the victim and tried to commit rape upon her. He has tried to obtain consent of the victim by offering her Rs.500/-. On protest of the victim, the accused-appellant has threatened her. Since the husband of the victim was not present on the date of occurrence and on return of the husband on 18.10.2013, the F.I.R has been lodged on 19.10.2013. The F.I.R has been lodged under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the I.P.C. The police after completing the investigation has submitted the charge-sheet under the above sections. The court has also framed charge under Sections 376 read with Section 511 I.P.C and the case has been committed to the court of Sessions to which the appellant has pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried and accordingly, the trial has commenced. 4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined altogether 05 witnesses. 5. P.W.-1, Kalawati Devi, is the neighbour of the victim, has stated in her examination in chief that she has - 2 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.365 of 2022 2026:JHHC:9534 been informed about the incident by the victim that on fateful night of 16.10.2013 the accused has assaulted the victim. There was no statement regarding any sexual assault or attempt to commit rape upon the victim. She has admitted in her cross-examination that she has not seen the incident rather she is not an eye witness. 6. P.W.-2, Sunil Mistry, is the husband of the victim, has stated that on returning on 18.10.2013 he has been informed by his wife regarding attempt to rape committed by the accused. Thereafter, he went to the court and got the complain typed and has gone to the office of the S.P., Dhanbad and thereafter, the F.I.R has been lodged. In cross-examination, he has admitted that he has given the statement as has been stated by her wife. He has also admitted that there is dispute of way (rasta) with the accused. He has also stated that the children were also present in the house. 7. P.W.-3, Phulwa Devi, is the informant/ victim herself and she has reiterated the incident with certain improvement. The place of occurrence in the F.I.R has been shown as inside the house while in the statement, it has been changed and shown as outside the house where she has catch-hold the hand-pump. Further, she has stated in her cross-examination, at para – 18 that the accused has fled away since she raised a basala (a wood cutting instrument). She has also stated in her witness that her nighty has been torn up but that has not been handed over - 3 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.365 of 2022 2026:JHHC:9534 to the police. 8. P.W.-4, Markandey Mishra, is the Investigating Officer and he has stated regarding the house i.e. the room which is the place of occurrence, but he has not stated anything about the torn cloth (nighty) or the place of occurrence i.e. outside the house, which has been stated by the victim in her examination. 9. P.W.-5, Shyam Bihari Rajak, has been declared hostile. 10. The defence has also examined two witness i.e. D.W. -1 Rambadan Singh Yadav and D.W. - 2 Brijnandan Tiwari and both are witness to the land dispute between the parties. 11. The trial Court, after recording the evidence of witnesses, cross-examination, and the statement of the accused person, has not found the accused guilty for the offence under Sections 376 read with Section 511 of IP.C rather he has been found guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. Referring to the above depositions, learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the following grounds : (i) There is three days delay in lodging the F.I.R, but no rational explanation has been given for the same, rather the victim has informed the neighbour then she could have informed the police - 4 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.365 of 2022 2026:JHHC:9534 also., (ii) The complaint has been got prepared in the court which itself suggests that it is not the true version of the story., (iii) There is contradiction regarding the place of occurrence. In the F.I.R, the victim has stated about the room of the house, while in the statement, she has stated about outside the house near hand-pump and she has also improved her statement regarding using of a basala (a wood cutting instrument). Further, in her statement, the victim has stated regarding tearing of nighty, but neither the said nighty has been shown to the police not it has been produced in the court. 13. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that admittedly, there is a land dispute and the same has been admitted by P.W.-2 i.e. the husband of the victim as well as the defence witnesses also and as such false implication of the appellant-accused cannot be ruled out. 14. It has further been submitted that there is no evidence whatsoever save and except the bald statement of the victim and the same is also not reliable and the same has also not been relied by the trial court and accordingly, the appellant has not been convicted for the offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 I.P.C. On the above grounds, prayer has been made to quash the judgment of - 5 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.365 of 2022 2026:JHHC:9534 conviction and order of sentence, passed by the trial court. 15. On the other hand, learned Special P.P has supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence stating that although the ingredients of Section 376 read with Section 511 I.P.C is missing, but there is allegation of assault by tearing the cloth of the victim and this fact has been stated by the victim and has also been corroborated by P.W.-1 and as such, there is sufficient material for conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 354 I.P.C. 16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from the discussion made as above, this Court finds that :- (a) except the statement of the victim lady, there is no other material available on record. It is settled principle of law that single testimony of the female victim is enough for conviction, but that must be reliable. In the present case, the exaggeration of the statement of the victim has been accepted by the trial court also, but the trial court has failed to take into consideration that the place of occurrence has been changed in her deposition by the victim and not only that rather she has improved her statement by stating that she has catch-hold the hand-pump to save herself and in her cross-examination, she has stated that she used basala (a wood cutting instrument) and that has deterred the accused. Thus, there is a - 6 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.365 of 2022 2026:JHHC:9534 material change and contradiction in the statement of the victim making it not reliable for conviction. (b) the corroborative evidence i.e. the torn nighty has neither been shown to the police nor has been produced in the court. 17. In view of above discussions, this Court finds that there is no sufficient material justifying the conviction of the accused-appellant even under Section 354 I.P.C. Thus, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.04.2022, passed in S.T. No.143 of 2014 is, hereby, quashed and set aside. 18. In the result, the appeal stands allowed and disposed of. 19. The appellant is on the bail, hence, he is discharged from the liability of bail bond. 20. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgment. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, the 06th April, 2026 Chandan/- NAFR Uploaded on 07.04.2026 - 7 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.365 of 2022