SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Raju Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 December, 2018

1

CRIMINAL APPEAL (S.J.) NO. 51 OF 2007
——–
[arising out of Judgment of Conviction dated 29th November, 2006 and
Order of sentence dated 30th November, 2006 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Seraikella-Kharsawan in Sessions Trial No.07 of 2005]
——
Raju Yadav …. Appellant
versus
The State of Jharkhand …. Respondent
——-
For the Appellant : Mr. Sunil Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms. Laxmi Murmu, A.P.P.
—–
PRESENT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
—-
JUDGMENT

Reserved on 11.09.2018 Pronounced on 18/12/2018

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the

State.

2. This criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of Conviction

dated 29th November, 2006 and Order of sentence dated 30th November,

2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Seraikella-Kharsawan in

Sessions Trial No. 07 of 2005, whereby the sole appellant was held guilty

and was convicted for offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian

Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7

(seven) years for offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Prosecution case, as it appears from the fardbeyan of P.W.2, the

victim (recorded on 08.10.2004), is that she resides as a tenant with her

mother, father, elder sister and brother-in-law in the house of Rajesh Gupta.

She stated that on the last night (07.10.2004), after taking meals with her

family members she went to sleep. At about 03.00 a.m. in the wee hours,

she woke up to nature’s call and thereafter when she was returning to her

room, when Raju Yadav, who is neighbor, all of a sudden came to her and

pressed her mouth with his hand and by threatening her to kill if she raises

alarm, took her dragging to his room and pushed her on the cot whereafter
2

he committed rape upon her. Victim tried to raise alarm but the appellant

kept her mouth pressed with his hand. Victim has further stated that

thereafter her brother-in-law Pradeep Tanti came there searching for her

and on seeing her brother-in-law, appellant fled.

4. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan, Adityapur Police Station Case

No.228 of 2004 was registered for offences punishable under Sections 376

of the Indian Penal Code.

5. Police investigated and filed chargesheet under Sections 376 of the

Indian Penal Code and cognizance of the offence was taken on 13.12.2004.

Case was committed to the Court of Session on 06.01.2005. After

commitment, the appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges. Thus, he was

put on trial.

6. To substantiate its case, prosecution examined 8 (eight) witnesses,

namely, P.W.1 Chandrashekhar Sah, who is a witness to the seizure, P.W.2

is the victim herself, P.W.3 Lalita Tanti is the mother of the victim, P.W.4

Lakh Nath Tannti is a tendered witness, P.W.5 Dr. Manorma Siddesh is the

doctor, who had examined the victim, P.W.6 Rajnandan Ram is the

investigating officer of the case, P.W.7 Pradip Tanti is brother-in-law of the

victim and P.W.8 Champa Tanti is elder sister of the victim.

7. In addition to the oral evidence, prosecution also exhibited the

following documents: –

Ext. 1 Signature of P.W.1 on Seizure List
Ext.1/1 Signature of P.W.7 on the fardbeyan
Ext. 1/2 Signature of P.W.7 on the seizure list
Ext.2 Medical report prepared by P.W.5
Ext. 3 Fardbeyan
Ext. 3/1 Endorsement on the fardbeyan
Ext. 4 Formal FIR
Ext. 5 Seizure list
3

P.W.1 Chandra Shekhar Sah is a seizure list witness. He proved his

signature on the seizure list which was marked Ext.1.

P.W.2 is the prosecutrix. She has supported the prosecution case as

narrated by her in the fardbeyan. During her cross examination, she has

stated that the appellant by showing her knife threatened not to raise any

alarm. She has denied of sustaining any injury. In her cross examination the

defence could not extract anything favourable from her.

P.W.3 Lalita Tanti is the mother of the victim (P.W.2). This witness has

also supported the fact that the victim woke up in the wee hours and had

gone out to attend nature’s call. She stated that when the victim did not

return within 10-15 minutes, she told her son-in-law (P.W.7) to see why the

victim had not returned. Thereafter this witness has narrated the entire

occurrence as stated by the prosecutrix.

P.W.4 Lok Nath Tanti has been tendered.

P.W.5 is Dr. Manorma Siddesh, who was posted as Medical Officer at

Sub Divisional Hospital, Seraikella, had examined the victim. She has

opined that sexual intercourse was made with the victim. She has stated

that according to x-ray report victim was aged about 16-17 years. This

witness had also found the victim not habitual to sexual intercourse. This

witness has proved her report which was marked Ext.2.

P.W.6 Raj Nandan Ram, Sub Inspector of Police, Chatra was the

investigating officer of this case. He at the relevant time was posted at

Adityapur Police Station as Sub Inspector of Police. He has proved the

fardbeyan, endorsement on the fardbeyan, formal FIR, the seizure list,

which were marked as Ext. 3, 3/1, 4 and 5 respectively. In addition he has

also stated about the investigation and recording of statement of witnesses

in course of investigation.

4

P.W.7 Pradip Tanti is the brother-in-law of the victim. He has stated

about the prosecution story as narrated by the victim. He has proved his

signature on the fardbeyan and seizure list, which were marked as Ext. 1/1

and 1/2 respectively.

P.W.8 Champa Devi is the sister of the victim. She has also stated

about the prosecution case as narrated by the victim.

8. After closure of evidence of the prosecution, statement of the

appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. Defence did not adduce any evidence in this case.

9. Trial Court, after hearing the arguments of the parties and on

appraisal of evidence, held the appellant guilty of the offence and convicted

him under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code by Judgment dated 29th

November, 2006 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7

(seven) years for offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code by

order dated 30th November, 2006.

10. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence,

appellant has preferred this appeal.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has

miserably failed to prove its case. He submits that save and except the

witness to the seizure, the medical officer and the investigating officer, all

the other witnesses are family members of the victim and no independent

witnesses has been examined in this case on behalf of the prosecution. He

submits that there are major flaws on the part of the prosecution, vital one

being non-production of chemical report of the garments of the victim. He

submits that the doctor has not found any external injury or any sign of rape

and even the victim herself in her cross examination has admitted that no
5

injury was caused to her. He submits that though the witnesses are all

family members but there is vital contradiction in their evidence inasmuch as

the victim (P.W.2) has stated that there was no bleeding whereas her elder

sister (P.W.8) has stated that blood mark was there on the clothes of the

victim. He submits that the victim has stated in her cross examination that

the accused was holding knife in his hand and if that be true, it is not

possible for the appellant to commit rape upon the victim while holding knife

in his hand. On these grounds, he prays for acquittal of the appellant.

12. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer and

submits that the statement of the victim is cogent and the same is

corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses. He submits that solely on

the basis of victim’s evidence, the appellant can be convicted. He submits

that the doctor has opined that there was sexual intercourse. He submits

that on these grounds, impugned judgment needs no interference by this

Court.

13. After hearing the parties and going through the records, I find that 8

(eight) witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. P.W.3 is the

informant, who stated that when she went out to answer the nature’s call in

the wee hours, this appellant caught hold of her and took her upstairs,

thereafter committed rape. She stated that appellant with a knife threatened

her and thereafter committed rape. This fact of threatening with the knife

has not been mentioned by the informant in the FIR. She stated that she

could not raise any alarm as she was under threat and thereafter her

brother-in-law came when this appellant fled. The brother-in-law is P.W.7,

who supported the prosecution case and stated that when the victim did not

return till 10 minutes, he started searching her and when he reached near

the house of Raju Yadav, he found the door of the room open and then the
6

victim came out of the said room crying and narrated that Raju Yadav raped

her and at that point of time Raju Yadav fled from the room, but, he could

not be apprehended. He also stated that the police seized the apparels. The

evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.7 corroborates each other. From conjoint reading

of evidence of these two witnesses, it is evident that victim was found in the

room of this appellant and she came out crying and the appellant fled from

the place. Victim, then stated that she was raped by this appellant. Now, on

analysing the evidence of the doctor, who is P.W.5, I find that she found the

victim to be 16 – 17 years. Thus, she is a minor. This age was assessed

after going through the x-ray. She deposed that sexual intercourse was

committed with the victim and in cross examination she states that victim

was not habitual to sex. This clearly suggests that sexual intercourse had

taken place with the victim.

14. I find there may be minor contradiction in the evidence of P.W.2 and

P.W.7 and other witnesses, but the basic fact that the appellant fled from his

room when P.W.7 had seen him and the victim came out of that room crying

and stated that she was raped is consistent from the depositions. Non-

production of the garments cannot be said to be fatal in this case. Nothing

has been brought on record by the defence to suggest as to why the

appellant will be falsely implicated in this case. No evidence is there that the

parties were hostile to each other. The victim was a minor and as per the

doctor, sexual intercourse was committed with her. There is nothing in the

entire record to suggest that the said sexual act was consensual.

15. Thus, considering the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.7 and the medical

evidence, which clearly suggest that the victim was sexually assaulted, I find

that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge of rape against the

appellant. I find that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and
7

order of sentence. The Judgment of Conviction dated 29th November, 2006

and Order of sentence dated 30th November, 2006 passed by the learned

Sessions Judge, Seraikella-Kharsawan in Sessions Trial No.07 of 2005 are

accordingly upheld.

16. The appellant is on bail vide order dated 19.05.2009. His bail bonds

stand cancelled. He is directed to surrender before the Court below within a

period of four weeks from today to serve out the rest of the sentence. In the

event the appellant does not surrender within the said period of four weeks,

the Court below will take appropriate steps for taking him in custody.

17. This appeal, accordingly, stands dismissed.

18. Let the Lower Court Records be transmitted to the Court concerned

forthwith along with a copy of this judgment.

(Ananda Sen, J.)

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated, the, 18th December, 2018
Kumar/Cp-03

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation