Jharkhand High Court
Amar Lohra vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 April, 2025
( 2025:JHHC:12132 )
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 155 of 2008
---------
[Against the judgment of conviction dated 07.01.2008 and the
order of sentence dated 08.01.2008 passed by learned Additional
Judicial Commissioner - XXth, Ranchi in Sessions Trial Case No.
212 of 2005.
-------
Amar Lohra, son of Late Bishun Lohra, resident of village -
Haratu P.S. Tatisilway, District - Ranchi
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
---------
For the Appellants : Md. Razaullah Ansari, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, A.P.P.
---------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on 07.03.2025 Pronounced on 23.04.2025
1. Heard Md. Razaullah Ansari, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant and Mr. Sardhu Mahto, learned A.P.P. for
the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction
dated 07.01.2008 and the order of sentence dated 08.01.2008
passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner – XXth,
Ranchi in Sessions Trial Case No. 212 of 2005 arising out of
Tatisilway P. S. Case No. 11 of 2004, corresponding to G. R. Case
No. 978 of 2004 for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian
Penal Code to undergo RI for seven years and the period of
detention undergone by the appellant as under trial shall be set
off towards the period of the sentence.
1
( 2025:JHHC:12132 )
3. In nutshell, the case of prosecution is based upon the
fardbeyan of victim which has been recorded on 06.04.2004 at
09:30 A.M. in Village – V (name concealed) wherein, victim has
allegedly stated that she is about 11 years of age and on Friday
(02.04.2004) at 16 hours she was grazing her two he-buffaloes
towards the West of her house then her villager Amar Lohra
(convict/appellant herein) came and victim was taken by him to
under constructed house of XX (name concealed) and she was
thrown on the ground and he did “Bura kam” for five minutes
after removing her undergarment.
It is further alleged by victim that she started weeping then
he fled away and she came to her house and there was blood on
her pant and out of fear of her parent, she took shower and
washed her undergarment. In the evening, when she felt pain
then she divulged incident to her mother and also told that there
was pain in her urinary passage. When her father came to home
at 10 P.M. in the night from Usha Martin factory then she and her
mother told him about the incident and thereafter her father told
the villager about the incident and her father was advised to
convene a Panchayati. When Amar Lohra did not turn up in the
Panchayati then commotion started and police officials came,
before whom she made above stated statement.
2
( 2025:JHHC:12132 )
4. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan, an FIR being Tatisilwai
P.S. Case No. 11 of 2004 under Section 376 of IPC has been
registered on 06.04.2004.
5. After due investigation, charge-sheet being Charge-Sheet
No. 44 of 2004 dated 29.10.2004 by showing Amar Lohra
(convict/appellant) as an absconder has been filed. After
apprehension of accused Amar Lohra, charge under Section 376
of IPC has been framed against him on 16.04.2005 which was
read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. To prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as
seven 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.
7. P.W. – 1 is the mother of the victim. P.W. – 2 is victim’s
aunt, P.W. – 3 is the victim herself, whereas P.W. – 4 is the
father of the victim and P.W. – 5 Dr. Manju Prasad is the doctor
who examined the victim on 06.04.2004 at Sadar Hospital,
Ranchi.
8. P.W. – 6 is the cousin brother of the father of the victim and
P.W. – 7, Sudama Prasad Singh is the Investigating Officer of the
present case. In statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the
convict/appellant simply denied the incident and has claimed to
be innocent.
3
( 2025:JHHC:12132 )
9. Apart from above-said oral evidence, prosecution has
brought on record fardbeyan of the victim as Exhibit – 1/ 2,
signature of victim and her father on the fardbeyan as Exhibit –
1 and Exhibit – 1/1, formal FIR as Exhibit – 3 and Medical
Report of the Dr. Manju Prasad as Exhibit – 2.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant started his argument by
making submission that this is a case where alleged commission
of rape has not been corroborated from medical evidence as P.W.
– 5 Dr. Manju Prasad has categorically stated that there was no
injury either on the private part or any part of the body of the
victim and even no alive or dead spermatozoa have been found.
11. It is further pointed out, that in the present case FIR is
delayed by four days which itself creates serious doubt about the
veracity of the fardbeyan of victim and apart from that, there is
major contradictions in the oral evidence brought on record on
behalf of prosecution. Learned counsel pointed out that, victim,
her mother, her father and her aunt categorically stated in their
respective testimony that they handed over the blood stained
undergarment to the Investigating Officer but this fact does not
found corroboration from the mouth of Investigating Officer who
has been examined in the present case as P.W. – 7.
12. It has also been agitated while arguing the matter that it is
the case of prosecution that victim was thrown by
convict/appellant on the ground of the house which was under
4
( 2025:JHHC:12132 )
construction and floor was having bricks and victim has
categorically stated that she got scratches on her back but this
fact does not found corroboration from the medical evidence
available on record because it speaks about no injury on the
person of victim. Lastly, it has been pointed out that
convict/appellant has been falsely implicated in the present
case.
13. Per contra, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submitted
that there is no material brought on record on behalf of defence
which could indicate remotely, about the false implication of
convict/appellant and law is settled that even sole testimony of
victim who has been ravished by the hand of accused is
sufficient to hold the accused guilty in such type of cases.
14. Further, in rebuttal to the submission advanced on behalf
of convict/appellant, learned A.P.P. for the State submitted that
it is the case of prosecution that as Panchayati was being
convened and when the convict/appellant did not turn up then
the case has been lodged so delay is well explained in the
present case and as far as injury not found on the person of
victim in her medical examination is concerned, it is urged that
as the victim was examined after four days of the incident so it is
well expected that by that time injury and/or dead or alive
spermatozoa could not be found. Upon the aforesaid premise,
5
( 2025:JHHC:12132 )
prayer has been made not to interfere with the finding of learned
trial court.
15. After perusing material available in trial court record, it
transpires that P.W. – 1 is the mother of the victim who has
stated in her testimony that on the day of incident victim went to
graze he-buffaloes in front of her house, then convict/appellant
took victim to under constructed house of XX (name concealed)
and committed rape on her person. She also stated that there
was blood-stained mark on her pant.
16. P.W.–2 is the aunt who stated in her testimony that on the
day of incident after hearing commotion, she visited to the house
of victim where she found that victim was crying and incident
was narrated by her mother. In cross-examination she has
categorically stated that had the convict/appellant come to
panchayati and would have tendered his apology then they
would not have lodged case against him, because matter was
related to respect of a girl.
17. P.W.-4 is the father of victim who has stated that incident
is of 02.04.2004 at 04:00 P.M. in the evening and at the time of
incident victim was 11 years of age and when he returned from
his duty he was apprised that his daughter was ravished by
Amar Lohra and on the next date when he went to the place of
Amar Lohra to inquire about the incident then he was
absconding and when he did not come, then a case was lodged.
6
( 2025:JHHC:12132 )
He has identified his signature on the fardbeyan and same has
been marked as Exhibit-1/1.
18. He has also stated that blood-stained pant was provided to
the Darogaji and same was seized and paper to this effect was
prepared. At para-16 of his cross-examination, he stated that in
Panchayat 15/20 persons assembled but XX (name concealed)
did not turn up and he had also taken name of few persons who
attended the Panchayati.
19. P.W.-5 Dr. Manju Prasad has deposed that she had
examined the victim on 06.04.2004 at 12:30 P.M. and she found
that breast of the victim was not developed, auxiliary and pubic
hair also not present and no injury on her private part or
anywhere on her body was found. However, she found old
rupture hymen present. Vaginal smear was taken and sent for
microscoping examination and result revealed that no dead or
alive spermatozoa found. She has found radiological age of the
victim about 12 to 15 years of the victim and has also found no
evidence of sexual intercourse at the time of her examination
and she has identified the report which is prepared by her and
same has been marked as Exhibit-2.
20. P.W.-6 is the cousin brother of the father of the victim who
has stated in his cross-examination that he came to know about
the incident from crowd after 3-4 days of incident.
7
( 2025:JHHC:12132 )
21. P.W.-7 Sudama Prasad Singh is the Investigation Officer of
the present case who has stated that on 06.04.2004 at about
09:00 A.M. in the morning, he received information about
commission of rape and crowd has assembled in village – V
(name concealed), then he registered a Sanha and visited to the
place of occurrence where he recorded the fardbeyan of the
victim and he has identified the fardbeyan and same has been
marked as Exhibit- 1/ 2. He has also identified his writing and
signature in formal F.I.R. and complete formal F.I.R. has been
marked as Exhibit- 3. Thereafter, he has stated that he took the
charge of investigation himself and recorded re-statement of
victim and statement of witnesses and also inspected the place
of occurrence. He has also stated that incident is of 02.04.2004
at 04:00 P.M. but report was not lodged on that day because
villager on account of social disgrace wanted to sort out the
matter in Panchayati but as it was not sorted out, report was
lodged on 06.04.2004. He has categorically stated that he has
not seized cloth of the victim because it was already washed. He
has stated that he filed charge-sheet by showing accused as an
absconder and he was having no information about the
convening of panchayati prior to lodging of report.
22. As far as age of victim is concerned, victim and her parent
have stated in their respective testimony that victim was about
11 years of age and doctor has also found her radiological age as
8
( 2025:JHHC:12132 )
12 to 15 years. The age of the victim which has been brought on
record either from the mouth of parent or through medical report
(Exhibit – 2) has not been rebutted by accused and, therefore,
this Court is having no hesitation to hold that the victim was
minor on the day of alleged incident.
23. The victim has been examined as P.W. – 3 in the present
case who has stated in her testimony that on the day of incident,
she went near the house of XX (name concealed) for grazing of
he-buffaloes and convict/appellant came there and she was
taken inside the house and he did “Bura Kam” with her. She
has also stated that on account of “Bura Kam” blood oozed out
from her urinary passage and she started crying then her throat
was pressed by convict/appellant and he fled away, thereafter,
she went to her house and narrated the entire incident to her
mother and when her father returned from Usha Martin then
she also apprised the incident to him.
24. In cross-examination, she has stated that convict/appellant
was 15-16 years older than her and she was knowing him since
two years back and has also stated that while she was being
taken by convict/appellant, she cried but no one had come from
the house of XX (name concealed). Near the home of XX (name
concealed) there are three-four houses and one house is of her
and other houses are of other villagers. She had given blood-
stained cloth to Darogaji in the police station in presence of her
9
( 2025:JHHC:12132 )
mother. Panchayati was convened at the behest of her father.
She has also stated that she had shown the scratch marked on
her back and scar on account of pressing of her neck to the
Doctor.
25. After going through the evidence, this Court finds that
victim has stated that accused did “Bura Kam” with her and
even blood starting oozing out from the private part and she has
narrated the entire incident to her mother thereafter when his
father returned from his duty from Usha Martin then he was
also apprised by her as well as her mother. This version of victim
is well corroborated from her fardbeyan and as far as giving of
blood stained pant of victim to the Investigating Officer is
concerned, it is true that all the witnesses including victim has
stated that same was handed over to Investigating Officer but
Investigating Officer denied the same on account of fact that it
was already four days got elapsed and cloth was washed by
then. In fardbeyan victim has stated that out of fear of her
parent, blood stained pant was washed by her and she had
taken a shower. As far as injury on her back which has been
stated to be shown to the doctor is concerned, it does not find
corroboration from the testimony of Doctor (P.W. – 5) who has
deposed that no injury was found on the person of victim either
on her private part or other part of her body.
10
( 2025:JHHC:12132 )
26. In the judgment rendered in the case of Manak Chand Alias
Mani v. State of Haryana reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC
1397, the Apex court has reiterated the settled proposition of
law that conviction can be made on the basis of sole testimony
of prosecutrix/victim without seeking corroboration of other
materials particulars. Relevant para of above judgment reads as
under:-
” 7. The evidence of a prosecutrix in a case of rape is of the same value
as that of an injured witness. It is again true that conviction can be
made on the basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. All the
same, when a conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the
prosecutrix, the courts also have to be extremely careful while
examining this sole testimony as cautioned in State of Punjab v. Gurmit
Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384:
“If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied
upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material
particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit
reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend
assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case
of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated
in the background of the entire case and the trial court must be alive to
its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving
sexual molestations.”
8. This was reiterated by this Court in Sadashiv Ramrao
Hadbe v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 92:
“It is true that in a rape case the accused could be convicted on
the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it is capable of inspiring
confidence in the mind of the court. If the version given by the
prosecutrix is unsupported by any medical evidence or the whole
surrounding circumstances are highly improbable and belie the case
set up by the prosecutrix, the court shall not act on the solitary
evidence of the prosecutrix.”
27. Also, in Mohd. Iqbal v. State of Jharkhand reported in
(2013) 14 SCC 481, it has been held that conviction can be
based on sole testimony of the prosecutrix/victim and her
statement does not require to be corroborated by the statements
of other witnesses. Relevant para of the judgment read as
under:-
11
( 2025:JHHC:12132 )
“17. There is no prohibition in law to convict the accused of rape on the
basis of sole testimony of the prosecutrix and the law does not require
that her statement be corroborated by the statements of other
witnesses.
18. In Narender Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2012) 7 SCC 171 : AIR
2012 SC 2281] this Court has observed that even if a woman is of
easy virtues or used to sexual intercourse, it cannot be a licence for
any person to commit rape and it further held : (SCC p. 180, paras 30-
31)
“30. … conviction can be based on sole testimony of the prosecutrix
provided it lends assurance of her testimony. However, in case the
court has reason not to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face
value, it may look for corroboration. In case the evidence is read in its
totality and the story projected by the prosecutrix is found to be
improbable, the prosecutrix’s case becomes liable to be rejected.
31. The court must act with sensitivity and appreciate the evidence in
totality of the background of the entire case and not in the isolation.
Even if the prosecutrix is of easy virtues/unchaste woman that itself
cannot be a determinative factor and the court is required to adjudicate
whether the accused committed rape on the victim on the occasion
complained of.”
(See also Vijay v. State of M.P. [(2010) 8 SCC 191 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri)
639])
28. As far as, the contention agitated by the convict/appellant
that no injury either on the private part or any part of the body
of the victim was found in the medical evidence, cannot be made
only reason to negate the testimony of the prosecutrix/victim.
The Apex court in the recent case of Lok Mal v. State of U.P.
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 516 has affirmed the
conviction under section 376 of IPC and held that absence of
injuries on the private parts of the victim is not always fatal to
the case of prosecution. Relevant paragraph of the judgment
reads as under –
“11. Merely because in the medical evidence, there are no major
injury marks, this cannot a be a reason to discard the otherwise
reliable evidence of the prosecutrix. It is not necessary that in
each and every case where rape is alleged there has to be an
injury to the private parts of the victim and it depends on the
facts and circumstances of a particular case. We reiterate that
absence of injuries on the private parts of the victim is not12
( 2025:JHHC:12132 )always fatal to the case of the prosecution. According to the
version of the prosecutrix, the accused overpowered her and
pushed her to bed in spite of her resistance and gagged her
mouth using a piece of cloth. Thus, considering this very aspect,
it is possible that there were no major injury marks………”
29. As far as plea of false implication is concerned, it appears
to be improbable to this Court on account of fact that there is no
plausible material brought during cross-examination of
prosecution witnesses or in statement of accused/convict under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., because only one fact which has been
brought on record on behalf of defence while cross-examining
the victim, by way of suggestion is that the land on which he-
buffaloes were being grazed by victim belongs to
convict/appellant and he forbade the victim.
It is very difficult for this Court to accept the above said
submission of defence on account of fact that when
victim/victim’s family was interested to implicate the appellant
in false case then why they had waited for four days and
panchayati was convened at the behest of the father of the victim
but reason only best known to the convict/appellant he did not
turn up in that Panchayati.
It is required to be noted that common prudence would
suggest that if the victim side wanted to implicate
convict/appellant falsely in the present case, then they were
having very good opportunity to lodge an F.I.R. on the same day
i.e. 02.4.2004 or even immediately on the next day but father of
13
( 2025:JHHC:12132 )
the victim chosen to convene Panchayati and when
convict/appellant didn’t turn up then present case was got
lodged.
30. This Court also finds that there is no material on record to
indicate that defence has denied the convening of panchayati by
the victim side and non-appearance of convict/appellant in the
said panchayati. Investigating Officer has categorically stated in
his testimony that charge-sheet has been filed in the present
case by showing accused absconder. The conduct of accused in
non-participation/non-appearance before the panchayati and
his absconding after the incident is also relevant under Section 8
of the Evidence Act.
31. Considering the social strata of the victim and overall
evidence available on record, especially when the victim was
medically examined after four days of incident, it can be well
inferred that victim has of course exaggerated/improved certain
facts qua giving of undergarments to I.O. and injury on her back
and scar on her neck but it cannot shake the foundation of case
of prosecution by disbelieving the testimony of victim and other
witnesses and that too when reason for false implication is
completely lacking/unavailable in the present case and also
conduct of convict/appellant. Even Doctor has stated that at the
time of examination (after elapsed of four days), she did not find
14
( 2025:JHHC:12132 )
any evidence of sexual intercourse but old rupture hymen
present.
32. In view of aforesaid discussion, the contradiction as pointed
out on behalf of defence, this Court feels that those
contradictions are not vital or material in nature which could
make the case of prosecution improbable rather the version of
victim and her parents and thereafter conduct of the accused
makes the case of prosecution probable and therefore this Court
does not find any reason to raise eyebrow in believing the
testimony of victim.
33. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere
in the finding of learned trial court, as a result of which, this
appeal is dismissed. As the appellant is in custody, no further
order is required.
34. 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 23rd day of April, 2025
Umesh/-N.A.F.R.
15
[ad_1]
Source link