Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand vs Rohit Rai on 18 July, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Sanjay Prasad
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19767-DB )
[Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
09.10.2018 (sentence passed on 11.10.2018) passed by Sri Kamal Nayan
Pandey, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Dumka in Special POCSO
Case No. 01/2017]
Death Reference No. 6 of 2018
...........
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Appellant
Versus
Rohit Rai, S/o Bhumeshwar Rai, R/o Vill- Javijore, P.O. & P.S.-
Saraiyahat, District- Dumka (Jharkhand) ... ... Respondent
With
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 113 of 2019
...........
Rohit Rai, S/o Bhumeshwar Rai, R/o Vill- Javijore, P.O. & P.S.-
Saraiyahat, District- Dumka (Jharkhand) ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
...........
In Death Ref. No. 6 of 2018
For the Appellant : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl. P.P.
For the Respondent : Mr. Mahesh Kr. Sinha, Adv.
In Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 113 of 2019
For the Appellant : Mr. Mahesh Kr. Sinha, Adv.
For the Respondent : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl. P.P.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
...........
C.A.V. Order
Order No. 06/ Dated: 18th July, 2025
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.:
Heard Mr. Mahesh Kr. Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 113 of 2019 and Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, learned Spl. P.P. for the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 09.10.2018 (sentence passed on 11.10.2018) passed by Sri Kamal Nayan Pandey, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Dumka in Special POCSO Case No. 01/2017, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offences u/s 364, 376, 302, 201 of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of POCSO Act and has been sentenced to Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19767-DB ) R.I. for life along with a fine of Rs. 5000/- u/s 364 of the IPC and in default in payment of fine he has to undergo R.I. for 3 years, R.I. for life u/s 376 of the I.P.C. along with a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default in payment of fine to undergo R.I. for three years, R.I. for seven years for the offence u/s 201 of the I.P.C. along with a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in case of default in payment of fine to undergo R.I. for 1 year, R.I. for life u/s 4 of the POCSO Act along with a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default in payment of fine to undergo R.I. for 3 years and death sentence for the offence u/s 302 of the I.P.C. along with a fine of 5000/- and in default in payment of fine to undergo R.I. for three years.
3. The prosecution case arises out of the written report of Yashoda Devi dated 02.01.2017, in which, it has been alleged that the three-year-old daughter of the informant victim 'X' was playing with the children when Rohit Rai (appellant) had picked up the daughter of the informant and went somewhere. The informant had a suspicion that Rohit Rai might harm the child of the informant.
Based on the aforesaid allegations Saraiyahat P.S. Case No. 02/2017 was instituted. On completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken. Charge was framed against the accused u/s 364, 376, 302, 201 of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the POCSO Act which was read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses in support of its case.
5. P.W.1 (Jahari Devi) has stated that she had seen Rohit Rai taking away the three-year-old granddaughter of Ruplal on his lap towards an allay. The family members of victim 'X' and the villagers searched for her but she could not be found. When the Police had apprehended Rohit Rai, he had brought the dead body of victim 'X' from somewhere.
-2-Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19767-DB ) In cross-examination, she has deposed that her house is adjacent to the house of Rohit Rai. Darkness had already descended at the time of the incident. Several persons used the allay. She has deposed that she cannot see in darkness.
7. P.W.2 (Tamadi Devi) did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile by the prosecution.
8. P.W.3 (Yogendra Tanti) is the brother of the informant who has stated that the incident is of 5:00 P.M. He and his brother Ravindra Kumar were playing with victim 'X' in front of the house of Pachu Tanti when Rohit Rai came, picked up victim 'X' on his lap and went away. The accused thereafter did not return back with victim 'X'. Despite conducting a search neither the accused nor the victim 'X' could be traced out. The victim 'X' and his mother Yashoda stays at his house. When the victim 'X' had become traceless Gilosari Devi and his sister Yashoda Devi had gone to the market and they had returned at 6:00-7:00 P.M. after which they were informed about the disappearance of victim 'X'. On the next day they had informed the Police and thereafter Police apprehended Rohit Rai who confessed of having murdered victim 'X' after committing rape upon her. The body of victim 'X' was recovered from the field at Shyamsundar pool on the pointing out by the accused.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that in course of playing he had gone to tie his goats and when he returned, he could not find victim 'X'. The statement of Yashoda Devi was recorded by the Police in the Police Station. In the Police Station his sister Yashoda Devi, mother Biloshari Devi, father Ruplal and one Pramod Kumar were present. He was also present when the statement of his sister was recorded.
9. P.W.4 (Anand Kumar) is the brother of Yashoda Devi who has stated that it was 5:00 P.M and he was in his house and his niece victim 'X' was playing with the other -3- Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19767-DB ) children in front of the house of Pachu Tanti in the allay. The accused Rohit Rai had come, picked up his niece on his lap and was walking nearby when all of a sudden, the accused could not be found nor his niece. On the next day in the afternoon the Police was informed. After Rohit Rai was apprehended by the Police, he had confessed to have committed rape upon victim 'X' and thereafter strangulated her to death. On the pointing out by Rohit Rai the dead body of the victim 'X' was recovered from an Arhar field.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that on the date of occurrence he had not gone to the school. The victim 'X' was playing with Soni Kumari, Priyanka Kumari, Rubi Kumari and Preeti Kumari. Though the allay is not a thoroughfare but people generally frequent in. The confessional statement of Rohit Rai was never recorded in his presence. He had not seen the incident but had seen victim 'X' being taken away by Rohit Rai.
10. P.W.5 (Teblal Rai) has proved his signature on the seizure list of seized underpant, belt and a slipper which has been marked as Exhibit-1.
11. P.W.6 (Bilosari Devi) is the mother of the informant who had gone to the market along with her daughter Yashoda Devi. At that point of time her son Ravindra, Yogendra and granddaughter victim 'X' were present in the house. By the time they had returned back home her granddaughter was already taken away by the accused. When she returned from the market, she found Yashoda crying and people shouting. On being asked Yashoda had disclosed that the victim 'X' was playing outside the house when Rohit Rai came and had taken away victim 'X' on his lap somewhere. She and the others searched for Rohit Rai and victim 'X' but they could not be located. They had searched for victim 'X' on Saturday and Sunday but when she could not be found the matter was reported to the Police. When Rohit Rai was questioned by the -4- Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19767-DB ) Police after he was apprehended, he had confessed to have committed rape of victim 'X' and thereafter murdered her. On the pointing out of Rohit the dead body of victim 'X' was recovered from a Rahar field. He had seen the dead body of victim 'X' and blood was seen on her private parts.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that she had stated before the Police the name of Rohit Rai as the person who had taken away victim 'X'. The allay in which the victim 'X' was playing is frequented by persons.
12. P.W.7 (Ruplal Tanti) has proved his signature on the seizure list which has been marked as Exhibit-1/1. The Police had recovered an undergarment, a belt and a slipper in his presence. He had signed on the original copy of the inquest report and he has proved the photocopy which has been marked-X for identification. He has proved his signature on the written report which has been marked as Exhibit-2. The signature of Nemani on the written report is proved and marked as Exhibit-2/1.
13. P.W.8 (Gouri Shanker Yadav) has stated that he was in his wheat field when he had seen Rohit Rai roaming around with a child. He had thereafter returned back to her home and he later on came to know that Rohit had committed the murder of the child.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that the distance between the wheat field and Arhar field is about 1000 meters. He was alone in his field. It was dark at that point of time. He had not witnessed the incident.
14. P.W.9 (Dr. Sweta Baxla) was posted as a Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital, Dumka and on 03.01.2017 a medical board was constituted comprising of herself, Dr. Ranjan Sinha, Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Dumka and Dr. A.K. Singh, Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital Dumka by the Deputy Superintendent, Sadar Hospital, Dumka. On the same day she -5- Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19767-DB ) had conducted autopsy on the dead body of victim 'X' and had found the following:
1. (i) Multiple bruise present on both side of neck along midline. On dissection sub cutanious echymosis present and hyoid bone fractured, mucosa in trachea congested.
(ii) Blood stained salivation from left angle of mouth placed horizontally.
(iii) Lip and nail are blue.
(iv) Mouth open, eye closed.
2. Examination of private part:
(i) Introitus was lacerated. Hymen was ruptured. Blood stained mucus was coming out from the vagina. Vaginal swab was taken and send for histo pathological examination which was negative for spermatozoa. Pathological report attached.
(ii) Abrasion on the private part (vulva).
(iii) Above injuries are antemortem in nature.
The cause of death was opined to be due to shock and asphyxia caused by strangulation prior to which sexual intercourse was done. She has proved the postmortem report which has been marked as Exhibit-3.
15. P.W.10 (Yashoda Devi) is the informant and the mother of victim 'X' who has stated that at the time of the incident she had gone to the market. Her three-year-old daughter victim 'X' was picked up by Rohit Rai from the house and after committing rape had strangulated her to death. After two days the dead body of her daughter was recovered from Arhar field. She has proved her signature in the written report which has been marked as Exhibit-4.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that neither she had witnessed the incident nor she had seen Rohit Rai taking away her daughter. Whatever has been stated by her is based on the disclosure made to her by her grandmother Jahari Devi.
16. P.W.11 (Mahesh Prasad Singh) was posted as an Officer-in-Charge of Saraiyahat P.S. and on 02.01.2017 Yashoda -6- Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19767-DB ) Devi had submitted a written report on the basis of which Saraiyahat P.S. Case No. 02/2017 was instituted against Rohit Rai. He had taken over investigation of the case. He had inspected the place of occurrence which is at village Jabijor in an unmetalled road in front of the main door of Pachu Tanti. This was the place from where Rohit Rai had taken away victim 'X'. He had recorded the statement of Jahari Devi. The Police had apprehended Rohit Rai in front of Bank of India who had confessed and based on such confession the dead body of the child was recovered and a slipper and a belt and an underpant were recovered from the place of occurrence. He has proved the seizure list which has been marked as Exhibit-5. The articles which were seized were produced before the Court. The slipper was marked as material Exhibit-I, the brown colour underpant has been marked as material Exhibit-II while the belt has been marked as material Exhibit-III. He has proved the carbon copy of the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-3. The second place of occurrence is the Arhar field of Shyamsundar Rai which is a lonely place situated at a distance of 1½ Kilometers from Jabijor village. He had recorded the statement of the witnesses and had also recorded the restatement of the informant. He had obtained the postmortem report. On completion of investigation, he had submitted charge-sheet. He has proved the arrest memo which has been marked as Exhibit-
7. The endorsement to the written report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-8. The formal FIR has been proved and marked as Exhibit-9.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that the Rahar plants were not crushed or broken.
On his examination on recall he has stated that the confessional statement of Rohit Rai was recorded by him. The same has been proved and marked as Exhibit-10.
-7-Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19767-DB ) In cross-examination, he has deposed that the confessional statement of Rohit Rai did not have the signature of any independent witness.
17. The statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., in which, he has denied his complicity in the rape and murder of victim 'X'.
19. Mr. Mahesh Kr. Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that admittedly there are no eye- witnesses to the occurrence. The entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. There are vital contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses with respect to the deceased having been last seen with the appellant. P.W.1 claims herself to have seen the deceased being taken away by the appellant but in her cross-examination, she has categorically stated that the Sun had set in and she cannot see in the dark. So far as P.W.6 and P.W.10 are concerned, at the time of the incident they were in the market and therefore, they were not in a position to see the incident. It has been submitted that P.W.3 and P.W.4 are brothers but the presence of each other has not been mentioned in their evidence. The confessional statement of the appellant leading to recovery of the dead body has its inherent contradictions and cannot be relied upon for the purposes of conviction.
20. Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, learned Spl. P.P. for the State has submitted that the recovery of the dead body at the instance of the appellant is a strong circumstance against the appellant. The finding of the postmortem report is corroborative of the manner of incident as depicted by the appellant. Moreover, several witnesses have stated about seeing the deceased with the appellant.
21. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the Trial Court Records.
-8-Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19767-DB )
22. Admittedly, there are no eye-witnesses to the occurrence of the rape and murder of victim 'X'. The entire case of the prosecution is built around circumstantial evidence. The first circumstance is of the deceased being last seen with the appellant. In this context, we may refer to the evidence of P.W.3 who is the brother of the informant and who has stated about playing with the victim 'X' who is his niece along with his brother when the appellant took victim 'X' on his lap and went away. The appellant was not a stranger to the family of the informant and his picking up the child on his lap would naturally not evoke any suspicion. Subsequently, however neither the appellant nor the victim 'X' could be traced out. In cross-examination, he has deposed that while playing he had gone to tie the goats and when he returned, he could not find victim 'X'. However, the evidence of P.W.4 categorically reveals about seeing the appellant picking up victim 'X' on his lap and after loitering around for some time he had vanished. Though the evidence of P.W.3 shows up certain contradictions but the evidence of P.W.4 is consistent and has stood the test of cross-examination. P.W.1 has also stated about having seen her granddaughter in the lap of the appellant but her evidence would not be of much significance because of her inability to see in the dark and as per P.W.1 darkness had already descended when the incident had taken place. We may also refer to the evidence of P.W.8 who was working in his wheat field and he had seen the appellant roaming around with a child. The evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.8 establishes the fact that the deceased was last seen with the appellant.
23. The other circumstance and which is more damning in nature is the confessional statement of the appellant. On being apprehended the appellant had confessed and based on such confessional statement the dead body of victim 'X' was recovered from a wheat field. The place was lonely -9- Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19767-DB ) as per P.W.11 (Investigating Officer) and a perfect spot to execute the dastardly act of rape and murder. In his confession the appellant had stated about committing rape upon the child and thereafter strangulating her. The postmortem report corroborates the version of the appellant in his confessional statement.
24. Both the circumstances projected by the prosecution clearly demarcates the role of the appellant of being the perpetrator of the ghastly act of committing rape and murder of a three-year-old child. The learned trial court has analyzed the evidence on record and has given appropriate reasonings while convicting the appellant for the offences u/s 364, 376, 201, 302, of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. We do not find any reason to conclude otherwise and consequently the conviction of the appellant is sustained.
25. In the case of "Deen Dayal Tiwari versus State of Uttar Pradesh" reported in 2025 SCC online SC 237, the mitigating and aggravating circumstances have been delineated and the same reads as under:-
"19. Aggravating Factors 19.1 Brutal multiple murders: The Appellant has been found guilty of murdering five persons--his own wife and four minor daughters. This crime, by its very nature, is undeniably grave and horrific. 19.2 Position of trust and vulnerability of victims:
The deceased were defenseless, particularly the four minor daughters, placing a moral onus on the Appellant to protect them. Instead, they were brutally killed in their own home.
19.3 Impact on societal conscience: Undeniably, such a crime of multiple homicides within a family can shock the collective conscience of the society.
20. Mitigating Factors 20.1 Absence of previous criminal antecedents: The record does not disclose any prior conviction or past criminal history on the part of the Appellant.-10-
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19767-DB ) 20.2 Reports suggesting scope for reformation: In compliance with our directions, the State has placed on record the report of the Superintendent of District Jail, Ayodhya. It indicates that the Appellant's behavior in custody has been "satisfactory" and "normal," noting that he has been performing assigned duties (such as cleaning/sweeper tasks) without any adverse conduct. While prison conduct alone is not determinative, it is a factor supportive of the possibility of reformation.
20.3 Socio-economic and personal circumstances:
Nothing on record suggests that the Appellant is incapable of rehabilitation. He does not appear to be a hardened criminal who poses an enduring menace to society.
20.4 Possibility of commutation- In several cases involving multiple homicides, this Court has nonetheless commuted the death penalty to life imprisonment, acknowledging the potential for reformation or considering other mitigating factors. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Krishna Master, (2010) 12 SCC 324, the accused wiped out almost an entire family, six persons on the ground of saving "honour." Despite the heinous nature of the crime, this Court commuted the death sentence to rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine. Similarly, in Prakash DhawalKhairnar (Patil) v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 35, the Appellant therein had annihilated his brother's entire family, but this Court held that although the crime was heinous, it could not be classified as 'rarest of rare.' It was emphasized that there existed a possibility of reforming the offender."
26. In "Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab" reported in (1983) 3 SCC 470, it has been held as follows:
"32. The reasons why the community as a whole does not endorse the humanistic approach reflected in "death sentence-in-no-case" doctrine are not far to seek. In the first place, the very humanistic edifice is constructed on the foundation of "reverence for life"
principle. When a member of the community violates this very principle by killing another member, the society may not feel itself bound by the shackles of -11- Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19767-DB ) this doctrine. Secondly, it has to be realized that every member of the community is able to live with safety without his or her own life being endangered because of the protective arm of the community and on account of the rule of law enforced by it. The very existence of the rule of law and the fear of being brought to book operates as a deterrent for those who have no scruples in killing others if it suits their ends. Every member of the community owes a debt to the community for this protection. When ingratitude is shown instead of gratitude by "killing" a member of the community which protects the murderer himself from being killed, or when the community feels that for the sake of self-
preservation the killer has to be killed, the community may well withdraw the protection by sanctioning the death penalty. But the community will not do so in every case. It may do so "in rarest of rare cases" when its collective conscience is so shocked that it will expect the holders of the judicial power centre to inflict death penalty irrespective of their personal opinion as regards desirability or otherwise of retaining death penalty. The community may entertain such a sentiment when the crime is viewed from the platform of the motive for, or the manner of commission of the crime, or the anti-social or abhorrent nature of the crime, such as for instance:
I. Manner of commission of murder
33. When the murder is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community. For instance,
(i) when the house of the victim is set aflame with the end in view to roast him alive in the house.
(ii) when the victim is subjected to inhuman acts of torture or cruelty in order to bring about his or her death.
(iii) when the body of the victim is cut into pieces or his body is dismembered in a fiendish manner. II. Motive for commission of murder
34. When the murder is committed for a motive which evinces total depravity and meanness. For instance when (a) a hired assassin commits murder -12- Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19767-DB ) for the sake of money or reward (b) a cold-blooded murder is committed with a deliberate design in order to inherit property or to gain control over property of a ward or a person under the control of the murderer or vis-a-vis whom the murderer is in a dominating position or in a position of trust, or (c) a murder is committed in the course for betrayal of the motherland.
III. Anti-social or socially abhorrent nature of the crime
35. (a) When murder of a member of a Scheduled Caste or minority community etc., is committed not for personal reasons but in circumstances which arouse social wrath. For instance when such a crime is committed in order to terrorize such persons and frighten them into fleeing from a place or in order to deprive them of, or make them surrender, lands or benefits conferred on them with a view to reverse past injustices and in order to restore the social balance.
(b) In cases of "bride burning" and what are known as "dowry deaths" or when murder is committed in order to remarry for the sake of extracting dowry once again or to marry another woman on account of infatuation.
IV. Magnitude of crime
36. When the crime is enormous in proportion. For instance when multiple murders say of all or almost all the members of a family or a large number of persons of a particular caste, community, or locality, are committed.
V. Personality of victim of murder
37. When the victim of murder is (a) an innocent child who could not have or has not provided even an excuse, much less a provocation, for murder (b) a helpless woman or a person rendered helpless by old age or infirmity (c) when the victim is a person vis-a-vis whom the murderer is in a position of domination or trust (d) when the victim is a public figure generally loved and respected by the community for the services rendered by him and the murder is committed for political or similar reasons other than personal reasons.
-13-Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19767-DB )
38. In this background the guidelines indicated in Bachan Singh case will have to be culled out and applied to the facts of each individual case where the question of imposing of death sentence arises. The following propositions emerge from Bachan Singh case:
"(i) The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in gravest cases of extreme culpability.
(ii) Before opting for the death penalty the circumstances of the 'offender' also require to be taken into consideration along with the circumstances of the 'crime'.
(iii) Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception. In other words death sentence must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime, and provided, and only provided, the option to impose sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be conscientiously exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and all the relevant circumstances.
(iv) A balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so the mitigating circumstances have to be accorded full weightage and a just balance has to be struck between the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances before the option is exercised.
39. In order to apply these guidelines inter alia the following questions may be asked and answered:
(a) Is there something uncommon about the crime which renders sentence of imprisonment for life inadequate and calls for a death sentence?
(b) Are the circumstances of the crime such that there is no alternative but to impose death sentence even after according maximum weightage to the mitigating circumstances which speak in favour of the offender?"
27. In the present case there is no doubt about the fact that it was the appellant who was responsible for committing the rape and murder of the victim 'X' and consequently the conviction has been upheld by us. The -14- Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19767-DB ) mitigating circumstances would indicate that the appellant is a young person and the appellant does not have any criminal antecedent. The appellant has remained in custody since long and there is nothing on record to suggest that the appellant cannot be reformed and rehabilitated. It is no doubt true that the offence which has been committed by the appellant is a dastardly crime but that by itself would not invite a sentence of death when the mitigating circumstances outweighs the aggravating circumstances considering the age as well as chances of reformation of the appellant and absence of any criminal antecedents. The case of the present appellant would not come within the category of rarest of rare cases and, therefore, we hereby commute the death sentence to rigorous imprisonment for life. The reference is accordingly answered and consequently Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 113 of 2019 is dismissed with the modification in the sentence imposed upon the appellant.
28. Pending I.As., if any, stands closed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Sanjay Prasad, J.) HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Dated, the 18th day of July, 2025.
A. Sanga/NAFR -15-