2026:JHHC:12377 Page | 1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 255 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 255 of 2019 [Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13th February, 2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jamtara in Sessions Trial No.04 of 2017, arising out of Kundahit P.S. Case No.56 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. Case No.920 of 2016] Prahlad Badyakar, S/o Ajit Badyakar, aged about 26 years, resident of Village Dhotla, P.O and P.S. Kundahit, District Jamtara …. …. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand …. …. Respondent --- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Appellant : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P. Dated: 28th April, 2026 1. Heard the parties. 2. The present Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13th February, 2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jamtara in Sessions Trial No.04 of 2017, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 341 & 354 of the Indian Penal Code (In short I.P.C) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years along with fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence under Section 354 of the IPC. He has further been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days for the offence under Section 341 of the IPC and in default payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for thirty days. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The criminal law has been put into motion by lodging an F.I.R. being Kundahit P.S. Case No.56 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. Case No.920 of 2016 against the appellant registered for the offence under Sectiond 341, 376, 511, 504 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2026:JHHC:12377 Page | 2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 255 of 2019 4. The brief facts of the case, as disclosed in the F.I.R., is that the informant is a Sahaiyka of Natultala Anganbari Centre but due to some problem, she is living in her fufa’s house at Godapiyal, from where, she used to attend her duty. She has been alleged that on 20.10.2026 at about 02:30 P.M., when she was returning back to Godapiyal and as soon as she reached near Dhotla Joria, Prahalad Badyakar came there, having dagger in his hand and by showing dagger, he caught hold of her and dragged towards the bushes and thrashing her on the ground. He lifted her petticoat in order to commit rape but she pushed him. On her alarm and hearing her alarm, Shantimoy Ghosh of Dhotla came whereupon Prahlad had fled away. Thereafter, she went to the house of her uncle at Godapiyal but her husband was out of village and on 21.10.2026 at night when he returned back, she disclosed the matter to him. On the next date i.e., 22.10.2026, her husband reported about the occurrence to the villagers and Prahlad Badyakar was called by the villagers, who accepted his guilt. 5. After investigation, the police has submitted charge-sheet under sections 341, 376, 511, 504 & 506 of the IPC. Upon which, cognizance has been taken and accordingly, charge has been framed under Sections 341, 376 read with Section 511, 504 & 506 of the IPC. The case has been committed to the Court of Session to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. For substantiating the prosecution's story, altogether eight witnesses have been examined. 7. P.W-1 Shantimay Ghosh is the alleged eye-witness, apart from the victim. He has clearly stated that he reached the place of occurrence but could not identify the person, who was fleeing away from the place of occurrence. Thus, this witness has neither seen the incident, nor identified the person escaping from the place of occurrence. Hence, he has been declared hostile. 8. P.W-2 is the victim herself. Although, she has narrated the prosecution story but in her cross-examination, she has clearly stated that she did not know the accused. But her husband i.e., P.W.3 namely, Rohit Ghosh has clearly stated that he was very much known to him. 2026:JHHC:12377 Page | 3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 255 of 2019 In her cross-examination, she has stated that her blouse was torn, but no such torn cloth been produced before the police. She has disclosed the caste of the accused. She has stated that no injury has been found. As per this witness, apart from her own statement, there is one eye-witness and corroborative evidence is the torn of blouse. The alleged eye-witness has not stated anything connecting this appellant with the alleged crime. So far as torn blouse is concerned that has not been produced before the investigating officer. Further, the investigating officer had visited the place of occurrence but nothing has been found. 9. P.W.3 is Rohit Ghosh is the husband of the victim/informant. He has deposed that the occurrence is of 20.10.2016 at 02:30 P.M. When he had gone outside for work. On returning his wife had disclosed him about the occurrence. In cross-examination, at para-11, he has deposed that the accused has known to him and his wife. He has also stated that he had gone to the place of occurrence but nothing has been found. 10. P.W.4 is Mathur Ghosh. He has supported the prosecution story but in cross examination, he has admitted that he had not seen the incident and has stated that the accused person was known to the victim. 11. P.W.5 is Kanchan Ghosh. He has supported the prosecution story but in cross-examination, he has admitted that there is a complaint by the victim against him under the SC/ST (PoA) Act. He has also admitted that in panchayati, the accused was appeared and he has stated that he has been insulted and he will commit suicide. He has denied that he is being discriminated as he is a member of Scheduled Castes. 12. P.W.6 is Nishikant Ghosh. He has deposed the accused had fled away seeing the P.W.1 namely, Shantimay Ghosh. But the P.W.1 has denied such fact. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that he has not examined by the police. He has stated that he had not gone to the panchayati. 13. P.W.7 is Pawan Rana. He has deposed that he heard the story after one day by the victim’s husband and he has also stated that the P.W.1 namely, 2026:JHHC:12377 Page | 4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 255 of 2019 Shantimay Ghosh had seen the accused, but the same has been by P.W-1. The alleged victim is a close relative of the informant and has admitted that he had not seen the incident. 14. P.W.8 Krishna Dutt Jha is the investigating officer of this case. He has deposed that he has re-recorded the statement of victim in the police station. He investigated in the matter and recorded the statement of witnesses who have supported the allegation. He has proved the Ext-2 endorsement on the case registration and Ext-3-Formal FIR. After completion of investigation, he has submitted the charge-sheet. In cross-examination, he has stated that he was not taken 164 Cr.P.C. statement and also confessional statement of the accused. In the place of occurrence, he has not found any torn cloth or any sign of violence. He has not found any injury on the person of the victim, therefore, not send her for medical examination. Further, he has arrested the accused before statement of the witnesses. 15. By referring to the above depositions, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that since there is a complaint by the accused under the SC/ST Act, this false and frivolous case has been lodged. Apart from the bald statement of the victim, the corroborative evidence i.e., torn blouse and the alleged eye-witness i.e., P.W.1 does not support the allegations made by the victim. Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out the following factors:- (i) The victim has stated that she does not know to the accused, while the P.W.3 i.e, her husband and other witnesses have clearly stated that the accused was well known to the victim. (ii) The victim has stated that P.W.1 namely, Shantimay Ghosh is the eye- witness of the occurrence, but the P.W.1 has denied such fact. (iii) The victim has stated that the blouse has been torn but that has neither been placed before the police, nor has been placed in the Court. (iv) The parties are on litigating terms due to the caste factor. 2026:JHHC:12377 Page | 5 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 255 of 2019 (v) The Court has disbelieved the prosecution story disclosed by the victim and as such, charge under Sections 341, 376 read with Section 511, 504 & 506 of the IPC have been negated. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the entire conviction is based upon the single testimony of the victim, but that testimony is not reliable and in such a scenario, the conviction is bad in law. 17. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence and it has been submitted that victim has clearly supported the incident. 18. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the records, this Court finds that:- (i) The corroborative evidences i.e., torn blouse and the eye-witness i.e., P.W.1 tells the story otherwise as the torn blouse was neither shown to the police, nor produced in the Court. (ii) P.W.1 namely, Shantimay Ghosh has denied the suggestion he had seen the accused at the place of occurrence. (iii) Apart from the statement of victim, there is no other material available on record and on careful scrutiny of her evidence, this Court finds that it is not reliable as:- (a) The victim has stated that she does not know to the accused, while the accused was well known to her as disclosed by P.W.3 and other witnesses. (b) There is a litigation between the parties and the accused is a member of Scheduled Caste and he has made a complaint to that effect that has been admitted by the other witnesses. 19. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the prosecution story is not reliable and the conviction based upon such unreliable evidence is not sustainable. Accordingly, judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13th February, 2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jamtara in Sessions Trial No.04 of 2017 is hereby, set-aside. 20. In the result, the present Criminal Appeal stands allowed and accordingly, disposed of. 2026:JHHC:12377 Page | 6 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 255 of 2019 21. Since the appellant is already on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond. 22. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this judgment. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Dated:28th April, 2026 Shahid/Raja Uploaded on 04.05.2026