2026:JHHC:10905-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 1590 of 2003 [Against the Judgment of conviction dated 27.09.2003 and Order of sentence dated 29.09.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Gumla, in Sessions Trial No. 267 of 2002] 1. James Topno, son of Haroon Topno. 2. Rollen Topno, son of Nirmal Topno. 3. Amus Topno, son of Ishaque Topno. All residents of Village – Kotbo, Tukutoli, Police Station – Kamdara, District – Gumla. … … Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent ….. For the Appellants : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate. Mrs. Supriya Dayal, Advocate. M/s Komal S. Nanjan, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, A.P.P. ……. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ….. Reserved On : 26.03.2026 Pronounced On :16/04/2026 Per Pradeep Kumar Srivastava 1. The instant criminal appeal is preferred by the above- named appellants challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.09.2003 / 29.09.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Gumla in Sessions Trial No. 267 of 2002, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been held guilty for the offence 2026:JHHC:10905-DB 2 punishable under Section 376 (2)(g) of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years along with fine of Rs. 1,000/- each with default stipulation. 2. It is to be mentioned that appellant no. 4 namely, Jollen Topno died during pendency of this appeal and his appeal has been abate vide order dated 13.01.2026. 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the victim girl (P.W.-1) lodge a written report (Exhibit-1) stating inter alia that on 18.08.2002, the victim girl (informant) proceeded from her home along with her sister and brother-in-law to Pokla Bazar (Gumla). They were returning from market at about 6:00 P.M. and reached near Raikera, in the meantime, all the four accused persons named in the FIR (present appellants) were sitting on the kalwat, caught hold of the informant, then her sister and brother-in-law attempted to rescue her, upon this all the accused persons threatened to sister of informant that if you want to flee away, you can do so, otherwise, you would also be raped. Due to threatening of dire consequences given by the accused persons, the informant’s sister and brother-in-law fled away 2026:JHHC:10905-DB 3 towards home. Thereafter, all the four accused persons dragged the informant forcibly towards bushes, inspite of her great protest and committed rape on her. It is alleged that at first Jollen Topno (now deceased) committed rape on her. Thereafter all the three accused persons (present appellants) committed rape upon her one by one. The accused persons left her at 10:00 P.M. in night. She was under severe pain, but any how reached the home and narrated about the incident to her parents, sister and brother-in-law. Her health was also deteriorated. Hence, she lodged the written report at police station on 23.08.2002. 4. On the basis of aforesaid written report of informant, Kamdara P.S. Case No. 34 of 2002, dated 23.08.2002 was registered for the offence under Sections 376/34 of the I.P.C. and charge of investigation was given to S.I. Raj Kishore Prasad Sinha, who after conclusion of investigation, submitted charge sheet against all the above-named accused persons for the offence under Section 376 (2)(g) of the I.P.C. The case was committed to the court of Sessions, where S.T. No. 267/2002 was registered. The accused persons denied the charges leveled against them and claimed 2026:JHHC:10905-DB 4 to be tried, therefore, trial proceeded. 5. In course of trial, altogether seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Apart from oral testimony of above witnesses, following documentary evidence have been adduced by the prosecution:- Exhibit-1 : Written report of the informant. Exhibit-2 : Injury report of victim (P.W.-1). Exhibit-3 : Formal F.I.R. 6. On the other hand, the case of defence is denial from occurrence and false implication. However, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. 7. The learned trial court, after scrutinizing the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at conclusion about guilt of appellants for the aforesaid offence and sentenced them as stated above. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously argued that all the witnesses examined by the prosecution are highly interested witnesses and close family members of the victim girl. The testimony of witnesses suffer from material contradictions and 2026:JHHC:10905-DB 5 discrepancies causing doubt on their testimony. The victim has been ravished by four persons, but her medical injury report (Exhibit-2) has not been proved by the conducting Doctor, who examined her, rather it was formally proved by any other Doctor inmates. The place of occurrence is also doubtful, as per evidence of the witnesses, which was never identified by the victim girl. Under such circumstances, non- examination of Investigating Officer gives a serious jolt to the prosecution case. The defence has also been seriously prejudiced in its defence due to non- examination of Investigating Officer. The learned trial court has also failed to get explained the incriminating circumstances appearing against each accused persons separately, rather a compound question has been put, which has been answered in negative. No specific overt act has been attributed against each of the appellants. The FIR was also lodged after inordinate delay of 05 days and no satisfactory explanation was offered except the general plea that the victim became ill which also cast serious doubt on the prosecution case. The time, place and manner of occurrence, as alleged by the victim itself, is doubtful, in view of the fact that she 2026:JHHC:10905-DB 6 was accompanied with her elder sister and brother-in- law even at the time of occurrence, who instead of going to lodge a case at nearest police station went to their home and the victim girl reached at her home after 10:00 P.M. in the night. Thus, the story projected by the prosecution inherently suffers from falsehood and not believable. It is further submitted that it is a case of gang rape, but the medical examination report of the victim although formally proved by another Doctor does not corroborate the version of prosecution. 9. It is further submitted that the appellants were all along in judicial custody till the conclusion of trial and were released on bail during pendency of this appeal and have sustained considerable period of imprisonment. Therefore, considering the fact that it is a stale case more than 20 years old and the appellants are on bail after undergoing incarceration for long time. Therefore, the sentence awarded to the appellants of 10 years R.I. may be reduced to the imprisonment already undergone by them in the ends of justice. 10. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of State has vehemently controverted the aforesaid 2026:JHHC:10905-DB 7 contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and has submitted that the victim has no animus to falsely implicate the appellants. She has categorically proved the specific overt acts of all appellants in committing ghastly sexual offence. Any discrepancy in the medical report or otherwise non-examination of the Investigating Officer does not affect the prosecution case. It is trite that the conviction can be based upon sole testimony of victim, if her evidence inspires confidence and she appears to be wholly reliable. 11. In the instant case, the victim girl has been cross- examined at length, but she has remained firm in her cross-examination and her version appears to be intact. Therefore, there is no reason to take different view than the learned trial court. There is no legal substance in the contentions raised on behalf of appellants and no merits in this appeal, which is fit to be dismissed. 12. In connection with quantum of sentence, it is argued that the most heinous crime has been committed by the appellants which is related to the dignity / integrity of a woman. Therefore, appellants don’t deserve any leniency in the matter of sentence also and this appeal is fit to be dismissed and the 2026:JHHC:10905-DB 8 conviction and sentence of appellants is fit to be upheld and confirmed. 13. The only point for determination is that “as to whether the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of appellant is legally sustainable or not?”. 14. Before imparting our verdict on the above points, we have to take brief resume of the evidences available on record. 15. P.W.-1 is Victim Girl herself. She has corroborated the contents of written report and stated that on 18.08.2002 at about 12:30 P.M., she proceeded to Pokla Bazar along with her elder sister and brother- in-law. She was returning with her sister and brother- in-law from the market at about 6:00 P.M., meanwhile, she saw that at Raikera Pulia, four accused persons were sitting. The accused persons caught hold of her, then her sister and brother-in-law wanted to rescue her, but they threatened them of dire consequences and dragged this witness towards bushes and at first, she was raped by Jollen Topno, thereafter, all the three accused persons (present appellants) committed rape on her one by one after lifting her undergarments. The accused persons left 2026:JHHC:10905-DB 9 her at 10:00 P.M. She was under severe pain, but anyhow, she returned to her home and narrated about the incident to her parents, brother-in-law and sister. In her cross-examination, she has reiterated the aforesaid incident and also disclosed her age about 15 years on the date of occurrence. She also admits that the accused persons Jollen and James are her relative and dewar of her sister Amlen. She also admits that on the date of occurrence itself, she had purchased a new bicycle from the Pokla market and was returning with one bag rice. She has also denied the suggestion of defence that the accused persons stopped her and asked for sweets because she has purchased new bicycle. She has also denied that her marriage was about to be settled with accused James, but due to some reason, marriage could not be fixed. Hence, her father has lodged this false case after four days of the occurrence against accused persons. 16. P.W.-2 : Makdali Barla is the elder sister of the victim girl. She has also corroborated the contents of FIR and stated that on 18.08.2002, she along with her younger sister (victim girl) and husband were 2026:JHHC:10905-DB 10 returning from Pokla market and reached near Raikera then all the four accused persons caught hold of the victim girl. She was also threatened that the accused persons will commit rape with her also, if she would not flee away, then she along with her husband returned to her home and narrated the story to her parents. She along with her husband again going to search the victim girl, but in the night at about 10:00 P.M. she returned and told that all the four accused persons have committed rape on her. In her cross-examination, she admits that due to threatening given by the accused persons, they did not raise alarm and straight forward returned to their home. She has denied any talk of marriage of the victim girl with Jollen. She has also denied any relationship with Jollen and James. There is nothing else in her cross-examination to rebut her aforesaid testimony. 17. P.W.-3 : Paulin Barla is the mother of the victim girl. She has simply state that her daughter returned in the night and disclosed that four accused persons had committed rape with her while she was returning from market. 2026:JHHC:10905-DB 11 In her cross-examination, she admits that the victim girl was medically examined at Kamdara Hospital. She has denied any previous acquaintance with the accused persons or any type of relationship with them. She has denied that they were intending to solemnize marriage of Jollen Topno with the victim girl, which he dinied. Therefore, false case has been lodged. 18. P.W.-4 : Mekhyle Barla is the father of the victim girl. He has also stated that on the date of occurrence, victim girl returned from market at about 10:00 P.M. and disclosed that all the four accused persons have committed rape on her. Thereafter, he along with his daughter went to lodge a report, which was scribed by his daughter herself. In her cross-examination, he admits that after the incident, his daughter became ill and therefore, FIR was lodged after 05 days. He has not disclosed to the villagers about the same. He was not acquaintance with the accused persons prior to the occurrence. He also states that his daughter studied till 9th standard and thereafter, she left study. At present her age is in between 16-17 years. 2026:JHHC:10905-DB 12 He has denied the suggestion of defence that the marriage of victim girl could not be settled with Jollen, hence, he lodged false case. 19. P.W.-5 : Lawrance Kerketta is the brother-in-law of the victim girl. He has also stated that on 18.08.2002 at about 6:00 P.M. he was returning from market along with victim girl and his wife and when they reached near the Raikera Kerwat, four accused persons caught hold of victim girl dragged towards bushes, upon protest, they were threatened of dire consequences, hence, due to fear, they returned home. Again, he along with his wife were going to search out the victim girl, but in the night at about 10:00 P.M. she returned and narrated about the incident of commission of rape. There is nothing in his cross-examination to rebut his above testimony. He has denied the suggestion of defence that marriage of victim girl was broken with Jollen Topno, hence, her father has lodged this false case. 20. P.W.-6 : Dr. Shakuntala Pandey, Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Gumla has formally proved the medical examination report of the victim, aged about 2026:JHHC:10905-DB 13 15 years, conducted by Dr. Shakuntala Tigga, Medical Officer, PHC, Kamdara on 23.08.2002. She has acquaintance with the handwriting and signature of Dr. Shakuntala Tigga. Hence, she has proved the medical report of the victim girl prepared by Dr. Shakuntala Tigga as Exhibit-2 and she has also deposed that as per Medical Report of the victim, it is apparent that rape was committed with the victim girl. 21. P.W.-7 : Munnu Singh, Advocate Clerk has proved the formal FIR in the handwriting of ASI Raj Kishore Prasad Sinha, which also bears the signature of then Officer-in-Charge S.I. Ravindra Kumar, which is marked as Exhibit-3. 22. We have given thoughtful consideration to the overall aspects of the case. It is obvious that FIR was lodged after 05 days’ delay, but the reason for delay has been reasonably explained by the victim girl, which was also corroborated from the evidence of her mother (P.W.-3) and father (P.W.-4), wherein they have stated that after suffering such a ghastly offence, victim girl was under severe pain and also got ill. She left food and went under depression. Therefore, the plea of delay in lodging the FIR taken by defence cannot be 2026:JHHC:10905-DB 14 considered to be vital in this case to cast any doubt on the prosecution story. In the case of rape, the evidence of victim girl stands on higher pedestal. She can’t be treated as accomplish but an injured witness. 23. The Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments has observed that the sole evidence of victim of sexual offence is sufficient for conviction of the accused without further corroboration from any other independent source, if her testimony is deemed “wholly trustworthy”, “unshakeable” and “inspires confidence”. The law does not require corroboration as an absolute rule, rather, the focus is on the quality of her evidence. 24. In the instant case, the evidence of victim girl, as discussed above, suffers from no embellishment, material contradictions or infirmities, rather she has consistently proved her earliest version contained in written report. She has been cross-examined at length, but no inconsistency has appeared to cast any doubt on the occurrence. The appellants by way of suggestion have taken plea that she has purchased a new cycle on the same day. Hence, they were asking for sweets and further plea taken that the marriage settlement talk was going on with Jollen Topno 2026:JHHC:10905-DB 15 (deceased appellant), which was broken. Hence, her father lodged this case to teach a lesson to the accused persons are absurd suggestions which don’t affect the core of the prosecution case. Moreover, no such defence plea has been proved or brought on record to disbelieve the unrebutted evidence of the victim girl. The victim has not been cross-examined to dispute the place of occurrence or manner in which she was ravished. It also appears that the testimony by other witnesses of facts namely, P.W.-2 sister of the victim, P.W.-3 mother of the victim, P.W.-4 father of the victim and P.W.-5 brother-in-law of the victim have also consistently supported the version of the victim girl. There may be unnatural conduct on the part of elder sister and brother-in-law, who accompanied the victim at the time of going market and returning therefrom, but the same cannot be treated as fatal to the prosecution. These witnesses belonged to tribal communities and under threat acted in their own manner as repercussion to the incident. The unusual or unnatural conduct of sister and brother-in-law of the victim girl cannot / should not affect the prosecution story as narrated by the sufferer of the crime, who happens to be a tender year 2026:JHHC:10905-DB 16 girl, about 15-16 years at the time of occurrence. 25. We also find that in the evidence of any of the witnesses of facts including the victim girl examined in this case, the defence has elicited no contradiction from their earlier statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the plea of appellants that they were seriously prejudiced in their defence by non-examination of I.O. cannot be sustained in this case, inasmuch as no contradiction has been pointed in the evidence of witnesses during their cross-examination. 26. So far non-examination of doctor, who conducted medical examination of the victim is concerned, it is trite that an expert’s evidence is always corroborative and not substantive piece of evidence, although medical report of the victim proved by another doctor goes to show that as per her medical examination report, rape was committed with the victim. Even if it may be assumed that the medical report is not proved by the competent witness, the same does not affect the prosecution case in the matter of rape cases. The testimony of victim herself reign supreme requiring no corroborative evidence, if her testimony is wholly truthful and reliable. 2026:JHHC:10905-DB 17 27. We have also gone through the judgment of the learned trial court and find that every aspect of the matter has been well-considered. The victim girl has been found wholly reliable and her testimony suffers from no embellishment. Defence has simple denial from occurrence and false implication. Therefore, we don’t find any error of law in the impugned judgment of conviction of the appellants for the offence of gang rape. 28. So far quantum of sentence is concerned, the minimum sentence prescribed under law is rigorous imprisonment of 10 years along with fine, therefore, the learned trial court has awarded minimum sentence to the appellants, therefore, appears no extra-ordinary or special reasons to take a different view and award lesser sentence to the appellants for such a serious and heinous offence. There is no extenuating circumstances or any mitigating circumstances to be considered in favour of appellants for reducing the sentence. 29. In view of the aforesaid discussions and reasons, we find no merits in this appeal, which stands dismissed. 2026:JHHC:10905-DB 18 30. The appellants are on bail, hence, their bail bonds are cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the concerned trial court within two months from the date of this judgment and undergo the remaining part of sentence awarded to them, failing which the learned trial court shall take all coercive steps for their arrest and detention for the purpose of suffering the remaining sentence. 31. Pending I.A., if any, stand disposed of. 32. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful immediately. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, the 16th April, 2026. Sunil /N.A.F.R. Uploaded On 17/04/2026