Jharkhand High Court
Rajesh Hansda vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 July, 2025
(2025:JHHC:17235)
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 415 of 2008
---------
[Against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated
17.01.2008 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge,
Pakur in S.C. No. 70 of 2007.]
-------
Rajesh Hansda, son of Sri Haradhan Hansda, resident of village -
Kumarbhaga, P.S.- Littipara, District - Pakur
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. Kanti Kumar Ojha, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P.
---------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on 11.04.2025 Pronounced on 01.07.2025
1. Heard Mr. Kanti Kumar Ojha, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant and Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned A.P.P. for
the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction
and the order of sentence dated 17.01.2008 passed by learned 2 nd
Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur in S.C. No. 70 of 2007 arising
out of Littipara P.S. Case No. 09 of 2007, corresponding to G.R.
No. 123 of 2007 for the offence under Sections 341/376/379 of
the Indian Penal Code to undergo RI for five years under Section
376 of the Indian Penal Code, RI for one month under Section
1
(2025:JHHC:17235)
341 of the Indian Penal Code and RI for one year under Section
379 of the Indian Penal Code alongwith a fine of Rs.5,000/- and
in default of payment of fine further sentenced to undergo R.I. for
six months.
3. In nutshell, the case of prosecution is based upon the
fardbeyan of victim which has been recorded on 23.02.2007 at
09:00 Hours in police station Littipara (Pakur). Victim (PW-9) has
allegedly stated therein that on 08.02.2007 she along with her
cousin sister (PW-8) at 07:00 AM in the morning went to
Kumarbhaga jungle to graze cattle and at about 11:00 O’clock
accused/appellant who was known to her started having
conversation with her and took her silver necklace and asked her
cousin sister to go home, otherwise she would be liquidated.
Thereafter, her cousin sister went home and victim started
following accused/appellant to get her silver necklace and by that
time, it was sunset and she was dragged towards Kumarbhaga
Dungri (Chahan) and it was around 08:00-09:00 PM and she was
laid down on the ground and accused/appellant forcefully
committed rape on her person and as she was weak she could not
be able to save her. Both of them were there for whole night and
she got scared as accused extended threat that she would be
liquidated if she would divulge this fact to anyone, and thereafter
he fled away and she also returned back to her home and
divulged the incident to her parent. It is further alleged that on
2
(2025:JHHC:17235)
next day i.e. 09.02.2007 panchayati was convened and it was
decided that accused/appellant would pay Rs.13,000/- within 15
days, but accused/appellant did not obey the decision of
panchayat and extended threat to family members of victim.
4. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan, an FIR being, Littipara
P.S. Case No. 09 of 2007 dated 23.02.2007 under Sections
341/376/379 of IPC got registered.
5. After due investigation, I.O has submitted charge-sheet
against the accused/appellant. Thereafter, cognizance was taken
by learned CJM, Pakur and case was committed to the court of
sessions. After apprehension of accused/appellant, charge under
Sections 341/379/376 of IPC has been framed against him which
was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded
not guilty and claimed to be tried. In statement under Section 313
Cr.P.C, the accused/appellant simply denied the incident and has
claimed to be innocent.
6. Learned counsel for the accused appellant submitted that
impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of law as
evidences of material witnesses P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-6, P.W.-8
and P.W.-1 have not been scrutinized properly as they have not
supported the prosecution version. He has further submitted that
learned trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence of P.W.-1,
the Doctor, who examined the victim but did not find any sign of
recent sexual intercourse. He has further submitted that learned
3
(2025:JHHC:17235)
trial court has also failed to analyze the evidence of P.W.-2 who at
para 3 of his deposition have stated that parents of victim had
settled the marriage of victim with the appellant and the appellant
refused to marry with her and father of victim had also demanded
money and as the appellant refused to pay the money to father of
victim, present case has been lodged. He has further submitted
that P.W.-3 and P.W.-6 have admitted that under the Santhal
Custom, if a boy and girl consensually establish physical relation
then, after its disclosure fine is imposed in ‘panchayati’ and the
fine is to be given to girl’s father, since the appellant did not pay
the fine as imposed in the panchayati, the case was instituted
against him. He has further submitted that learned trial court
has failed to analyze the evidence of P.W.-9 (victim), who during
her cross examination has stated that on putting her down on the
ground by the appellant she sustained injuries on her back but
P.W.-1, Doctor did not find any mark of external injury. On
aforesaid premise, learned counsel has submitted that impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and
liable to be set aside.
7. Per contra, learned APP for the State has submitted that
there is specific allegation of rape against the appellant-accused.
Further, P.W-8 (cousin sister of the victim) who also went to
jungle alongwith victim to graze her cows, has stated that the
accused appellant snatched the silver chain of victim and also
4
(2025:JHHC:17235)
threatened her to go home, otherwise she would be liquidated. He
has further stated that the PW-2 (villager) has stated about the
panchayati in which fine was imposed upon the accused
appellant for establishing physical relationship with the victim.
P.W.-3 has also stated that a compromise was arrived between
the accused and victim in the panchayati. Therefore, even on the
basis of testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3 prosecution has
successfully established the commission of rape by the appellant
and submitted that impugned judgment bears no infirmity and
appeal is liable to be dismissed.
8. Heard learned counsel for the accused/appellant and
learned A.P.P. for the State and perused the material available on
record.
9. This Court finds, to prove its case, prosecution has
examined as many as ten witnesses in the present case. To
conceal the identity and parentage of the victim and her relatives
their names are not being disclosed in this Judgment.
10. These witnesses are; PW-1 Dr. Anita Sinha, PW-2 Benjamin
Hansda (villager), PW-3 Vakil Murmu (villager), PW-4 Sahib Kisku
(villager), PW-5 Lakhiram Murmu (villager), PW-6 father of victim,
PW-7 mother of victim, PW-8 cousin sister of victim, PW-9 victim
and PW-10 Animesh Kumar Gupta, I.O of the present case.
11. In fact, there are three sets of witnesses whose deposition(s)
has been got recorded in the present case. First set of witnesses is
5
(2025:JHHC:17235)
victim and her family members who are PW-9, PW-8, PW-7 and
PW-6. Second set of witnesses are villagers and they are PW-2,
PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5. Third set is official witnesses who are PW-
1 doctor who examined victim on 23.02.2007 and PW-10 who is
the I.O and has investigated the present case.
12. Firstly, I would like to scrutinize evidence of villagers. PW-2
Benjamin Hansda has stated that he was very much present in
the panchayat and father of the victim had fixed her marriage
with accused/appellant and accused/appellant denied for
marriage and father of the victim demanded money for denial of
marriage. As far as PW-3 Vakil Murmu, PW-4 Sahib Kisku and
PW-5 Lakhiram Murmu are concerned, they had stated in their
respective testimony that they were very much present at the time
of panchayat, but has stated that the said panchayat was done
for the article of victim which was lost by accused/appellant and
as the price of the lost article was not given/paid by
accused/appellant, that’s why, the case has been lodged.
13. PW-4 and PW-5 declared hostile but nothing has been
extracted from their respective mouth which would support the
case of prosecution.
14. The above said testimony of villagers further got
corroborated from the mouth of mother of the victim (PW-7) who
has stated at para-5 of cross-examination that they went to the
Pradhan for returning of article by the accused/appellant and in
6
(2025:JHHC:17235)
panchayat Pradhan did not impose fine on him rather
accused/appellant was asked to return the article and when
article was not returned then the present case has been lodged.
This witness has also stated in her examination-in-chief that PW-
8 returned on that day and told her that accused/appellant had
caught hold of victim and cattle were brought by her then she
along with other persons went to that place in the jungle, but
they could not find them.
15. PW-9 is the victim who has stated that incident took place on
Thursday about seven months ago at 08:00 AM in the morning
and she was grazing cow towards mountain side and PW-8 was
with her and she was also grazing cow. In the meanwhile,
accused/appellant came near her and her gamchcha and silver
necklace were snatched and accused/appellant told PW-8 to go
back by taking cow, otherwise she would be liquidated. Therefore,
PW-8 went along with cow. Victim has also stated that for whole
day accused/appellant did not allow her to go home and when it
was evening then she was dragged towards jungle and committed
rape upon her 3/4 times in the night and at 04:00 AM in the
morning he fled away after leaving her and when she started
coming from jungle then in the way near pond (pokhar) she met
with her father and divulged incident to him. Thereafter, his
father conveyed the incident to Village Pradhan and on next day
panchayati was convened and it was decided that
7
(2025:JHHC:17235)
accused/appellant would give her Rs.13,000/- as cost of necklace
and fine, but he did not obey the decision of panchayat, rather he
extended threat to her.
In cross-examination, victim has stated that as
accused/appellant did not pay the fine imposed by panchayat,
that’s why, present case has been lodged. She has also stated
that she did not give tooth-bite to accused/appellant while he was
committing rape and even she did not scratch him and in the
interval of ten minutes thrice rape was committed. For entire
night, she and accused/appellant slept at the same place and in
the morning, she wore the cloth and she asked for mala in the
night and morning also, but accused/appellant did not return.
16. PW-8 is said to be cousin sister of the victim who stated that
on the day of incident, she along with victim went to jungle for
grazing cattle and accused/appellant came and snatched victim’s
silver necklace and she was told by accused/appellant to go home
otherwise she would be throttled, and out to fear, she returned
back and she narrated incident to father of the victim, then she
had taken father, brother and bhabhi of the victim to the place
where necklace was snatched by accused/appellant, but they
could not find either victim or accused/appellant and on next day
victim came back and told the incident to her father. PW-8 also
deposed that accused/appellant lost marki (nose pin) and
necklace of victim and committed rape on her person for whole
8
(2025:JHHC:17235)
night. She has also stated that other persons were also grazing
cattle while they were grazing the cattle and when chain was
snatched victim shouted, but other persons did not turn up.
17. PW-6 who happens to be father of the victim, has stated that
entire incident was narrated by victim when she reached home
and she told that accused/appellant took nose pin and silver
chain and committed rape on her person, then he went to
Pradhan of the village and panchayati was convened which was
attended by accused/appellant also and father of
accused/appellant given assurance that article would be returned
back and there was deliberation on rape also and it was decided
that fine would be paid but accused/appellant neither returned
article nor paid fine, that’s why case has been lodged.
In cross-examination, he has categorically stated that in
santhal society, it is rule that if a boy and girl indulge into
physical activity with their consent and are caught, then fine
would be imposed and it was given to father of the girl and as fine
was not given, therefore this case has been lodged.
18. PW-10 is I.O of the present case, who has investigated the
matter and during course of investigation recorded the statement
of the witnesses and also visited the place of occurrence and has
stated the second place of occurrence is a flat land beneath a
mango tree and further description given by him in his testimony
reveals that it is secluded place.
9
(2025:JHHC:17235)
19. PW-1 Dr. Amita Sinha after examining the victim found that
there is no sign of recent sexual intercourse, but she was habitual
of sexual intercourse.
20. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tameezuddin @
Tammu vs State of (Nct) of Delhi reported in (2009) 15 SCC
566 has held that the evidence of prosecutrix should be read and
considered in totality in corroboration with other evidences, if the
story of narration of the prosecutrix seems to be improbable to
the Court. Relevant paragraph of the judgment is quoted
hereunder:-
9.It is true that in a case of rape the evidence of the prosecutrix must
be given predominant consideration, but to hold that this evidence has
to be accepted even if the story is improbable and belies logic, would
be doing violence to the very principles which govern the appreciation
of evidence in a criminal matter.
21. After going through the aforesaid legal proposition and
evidence brought on record on behalf of prosecution, it is clear
that it is the case of prosecution that victim along with PW-8 went
in the jungle for grazing cow in the morning and at about 11:00
AM accused/appellant met, then he took silver chain of the victim
and extended threat to PW-8 to go back to home along with cattle
and victim started following accused/appellant with a view to
take back her silver chain and in the meanwhile it was dusk and
in the night accused/appellant committed rape on her person
three/four times, that too, in the interval of ten minutes.
10
(2025:JHHC:17235)
22. It is the case of prosecution that victim is major. The version
of victim as stated by her that as threat was extended by
accused/appellant, therefore she could not resist or forbade him
from committing rape, appears to be improbable in the present
case after analyzing the evidence. PW-8 cousin sister of the victim
has stated in her testimony that the place where she and victim
were grazing cattle where the accused came, other persons were
also grazing the cattle nearby and no explanation has come in the
evidence from the mouth of victim that for entire half day what
prevented her from going out of the company of
accused/appellant, because it was an open area and persons
were also present nearby. Victim herself said that both of them
i.e. victim and accused/appellant slept in the night at the same
place and she wore the cloth in the morning and she came
towards her house when accused/appellant left her from that
place. As far as narration of incident by victim to her father is
concerned, her father has stated that the victim has conveyed
him regarding the incident in the home, whereas victim herself
has stated that she told her father regarding the incident while
she was returning in the next morning near the pond. The
villagers who have been examined in the present case had
categorically stated that panchayati was convened as the articles
of victim were lost by accused/appellant. Even the conjoint
reading of evidences of mother and father of the victim also
11
(2025:JHHC:17235)
suggest that as the fine imposed by the panchayat was not paid,
that’s why, the present case has been lodged. Father of the victim
has further stated that fine used to be imposed on the boy when
boy and girl consensually made physical relation and they were
caught and the said amount is to be paid to the father of the
victim.
23. Considering the discussions made in the preceding
paragraphs, this Court is of considered view that there is no iota
of material available on record which could suggest that victim
was overpowered against her will either by extending threat or by
any other extraneous means and it compelled victim to remain
with accused/appellant for half day as well as whole night. In the
aforesaid circumstances, this Court is having no hesitation to
hold that physical relation established by appellant with victim
was a consensual one. As such, no offence of rape u/s 376 of
I.P.C. is made out. Learned trial court has not examined the
materials available on record from this angle. As far as offence
u/s 341 and Section 379 of I.P.C. is concerned, in view of
aforesaid discussions, as appellant is exonerated from charge u/s
376 I.P.C. therefore, he is also entitled for exoneration from
charges u/s 341 and 379 of I.P.C. As such, charges against
appellant under Sections 341, 379 and 376 of I.P.C. are liable to
be set aside.
12
(2025:JHHC:17235)
24. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and the order of
sentence dated 17.01.2008 passed by learned 2nd Additional
Sessions Judge, Pakur in S.C. No. 70 of 2007 is not sustainable
in the eyes of law and accordingly, it is set aside.
25. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.
26. Since the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the
liability of the bail bonds.
27. Let the trial court record be sent back to the court
concerned forthwith.
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
Dated, the 1st day of July, 2025
R.K./-N.A.F.R.
13