Jharkhand High Court
Against The Judgment Of Conviction ... vs State Of Jharkhand on 11 October, 2018
Author: B.B. Mangalmurti
Bench: B.B.Mangalmurti
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.810 of 2002
-----------
[Against the judgment of conviction dated 24th August, 2002 and order of sentence dated 26th August, 2002 passed by Shri Harish Chandra Mishra, Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Trial No.178 of 2001]
-----------
Basudeo Manjhi, son of Late Panchu Manjhi Resident of Village-Basuadih, P.S. & P.O. Jasidih District-Deoghar .... .... .... Appellant
--Versus--
State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
For the Appellant : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.B.MANGALMURTI
C.A.V. ON: 07.09.2018 PRONOUNCED ON: 11.10.2018
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 24th August, 2002 and order of sentence dated 26th August, 2002 passed by Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Trial No.178 of 2001 holding the appellant guilty under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the victim girl Putul Devi, aged about 17 years went to take water from the hand-pump situated near her house on 28.02.2001 at about 5.00 p.m.. When she was taking water, accused Basudeo Majhi came there and caught her forcibly and dragged her into his house and confined her in a room and committed rape upon her. When the victim tried to raise alarm, accused strangulated her and threatened to kill her. After committing rape, accused closed the room from the outside and fled away. After some time, she was rescued from the room by the police.
On the basis of the fardbeyan given by the victim Putul Devi, Jasidih P.S. Case No.41 of 2001 was instituted for the offence 2 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 810 of 2002 under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet in this case.
4. The prosecution altogether examined eight witnesses on their behalf.
5. P.W.1 Kashi Mahra is father of victim girl. He has stated that the occurrence is of six months ago. Her daughter had gone to take water from the hand-pump in the evening and when she did not return, he started searching her. When he could not find her he gave the information to the police. The police recovered her from the house of Basudeo Manjhi and then her daughter started crying and informed that Basudeo Manjhi has committed rape upon her forcibly. The house of Basudeo Manjhi is situated in his village. The police recorded the fardbeyan of her daughter whereupon this witness put his signature. He has identified his signature which has been marked as Ext.1. This witness has identified the accused present in court. During cross- examination, this witness has stated that her daughter Putul Devi is married lady but her husband has deserted her. He has stated that his daughter was never found in compromising position with Jhukka Manjhi and Bhitha Manjhi for which complain was made by the accused due to which the accused has been falsely implicated. He has stated that the house of Basudeo Manjhi is situated by the side of busy road and he is living in his house with his wife and six children. He has stated that when he gone to the house of Basudeo Manjhi, he met with his wife and children.
6. P.W.2 Shakuntala Devi @ Shakun Devi is the mother of Putul Devi. She has stated that occurrence is about seven months ago. Her daughter went to take water on the hand-pump situated near the house of Basudeo Manjhi and Basudeo Manjhi dragged in his house. When her daughter did not return, she started searching her and when she did not find her, she started weeping. She told everything to her husband. Thereafter, her husband called police and police recovered 3 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 810 of 2002 her daughter from the house of Basudeo Manjhi. Her daughter informed that Basudeo Manjhi has forcibly committed rape upon her. She has identified Basudeo Manjhi present in Court. During cross- examination, she has stated that her daughter is married but her husband Kishor Mahto has deserted her for dowry. She has not lodged any case against her son-in-law Kishor Mahto. She has stated that Basudeo Manjhi has two houses. In one house his wife and children reside and another adjacent house is vacant in which he had taken her daughter. She has denied the suggestion her daughter was found in compromising position with Jhukka Manjhi and Bhitha Manjhi which was complained by the accused due to which the accused has been falsely implicated.
7. P.W.3 Putul Devi is the victim who has stated that at about 5.00 p.m. in the evening she had gone to take water at hand-pump. At that time she was at the house of her father and the hand-pump is at the distance of about 7-8 hand. She was taking water then Basudeo Manjhi came there and dragged her in his house forcibly and committed rape upon her forcibly. Thereafter, he closed the room from the outside and fled away. After some time, her father came with Chowkidar and Bara Babu (Daroga) and rescued her from the house of accused. She further stated that she had given the statement before the police whereupon she had put her signature. Her signature on the fardbeyan has been marked as Ext.1/1 and she has also identified the signature of her father which was earlier marked as Ext.1. She has identified the accused Basudeo Manjhi present in court. During cross- examination, she has stated that Basudeo Manjhi has three sons and three daughters. His one daughter is married and he has also one grandson. She has stated that she has been deserted by her husband due to demand of dowry. She has stated that she does not know Jhukka Manjhi and Bhitha Manjhi. She denied the suggestion having any illicit relationship with them due to which she became pregnant due to which she was deserted by her husband. She has given the 4 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 810 of 2002 details of room of the house of accused where the occurrence took place. She has stated that there was injury on her private part and blood oozed out from it and her clothes were stained with blood. She is not aware whether her blood stained clothes and earth were seized by Daroga Ji.
8. P.W.4 Rajeev Kumar Singh is I.O. of this case. He has stated that on 26.02.2001 he was posted at Jasidih Police Station. He got the information from the father of victim that the victim had gone to take water from hand-pump but she did not return whereupon he along with Officer-in-Charge namely Prem Nath with other constables went to that village for verification of the case and recovered the victim Putul Devi from the hut behind the house of Basudeo Manjhi. Putul Devi informed that Basudeo Manjhi had dragged her in this house from the hand-pump and committed rape upon her. He has stated that Daroga Prem Nath has recorded the fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext.2. He has visited the place of occurrence and stated that the house is situated by the side of road. He has stated that he recorded the statement of the witnesses and sent the victim for medical examination and after finding the case true, arrested the accused. After investigation, he submitted charge-sheet in this case. He has proved the formal F.I.R. which has been marked as Ext.3. During cross- examination, this witness has stated that a raiding party was constituted for recovery of girl in which he was one of the member. He has searched the house of Basudeo Manjhi but not searched the nearby houses. He has stated that he has not found any struggling mark or blood stain at the place of occurrence.
9. P.W.5 Sanjay Das, P.W.6 Lalit Kumar Das and P.W.7 Upendra Paswan have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case.
10. P.W.8 Dr. Shradha Singh has stated that on 01.03.2001 she was posted at C.A.S. at Deoghar Sadar Hospital and examined the victim lady namely Putul Devi. She has stated that the victim was 5 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 810 of 2002 normal mentally and her general condition was average. She found victim's secondary secondary sexual characters were developed.
Injury No. (i) Scratch on left palm near root of thumb ¼" long.
(ii) Scratch on left elbows ½" long.
Examination on private parts:-
No injury on private part. No foreign hair. No semen staining on private parts. Old and healed hymen tear. Vaginal swab taken and sent for pathological report to Pathology Department of Sadar Hospital, Deoghar. X-ray of right hand and pelvis done at central X-ray clinic, Deoghar on 01.03.2001 vide plate no.25R and 26R.
There is complete fusion of radial epiphysis and partial fusion of iliac crest epiphysis. According to X-ray findings and general appearance, she was between 18-19 years.
Pathological report of vaginal swab - Epithelial cells, leucocytes and R.B.C. present. Spermatozoa not seen.
No definite opinion of rape could be given.
She has stated that this report is in in her pen and signature which was marked Ext.4.
Injury No.(i) could be caused at the time of paddy cutting or wood cutting and injury No.(ii) could be caused while carrying baskets.
At the time of examination, the victim was anxiety less.
11. After conclusion of prosecution case, the statement of accused-appellant was recorded where he denied the evidence against him. In his defence, she has stated that Putul Devi had illicit relationship with Jhuka Manjhi and Bhitka Manjhi and he had informed the father of Putul Devi and due to this reason he has been falsely implicated in this case. He denied that Putul Devi was recovered from his house by the police.
12. D.W.1-Malo Devi and D.W.2-Kusmi Devi were examined on the point that victim-Putul Devi had illicit relationship and Basudeo
6 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 810 of 2002 Manjhi has caught them in a compromising position with Jhuka Manjhi and Bhitka Manjhi.
13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that no independent witness has supported the case except the father and mother of the victim. He further submitted that alleged place of occurrence is situated on a busy road but nobody could came in support of the case except her parents. The victim had not resisted so it appears that her consent was there. He also submitted that P.W.8- Dr. Shradha Singh had examined the victim on the next day of occurrence but she did not find any trace of rape or injury on her private part. Even the blood stained clothe was not given to the police.
14. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State submitted that as per evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4, the victim girl was recovered from the house of appellant and that fact was also supported by the I.O. He further submitted that the appellant had two house in which place of occurrence was a lonely house (Jhopri) which was situated besides the other house of appellant. Since the victim was a married lady, so no injury could have appeared on her private part but the doctor has found scratches on the body of the victim. Lastly, he submitted that there is no infirmity in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant.
15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on scrutiny evidences adduced on behalf of the both the sides, it appears that the victim girl has fully supported the prosecution version that she was dragged by the appellant in his one of the house (Jhopri) and committed rape and thereafter closed the room from the outside and fled away. The parents of the victim girl as well as I.O. (P.W.4) have corroborated this part of the evidence as the victim girl was rescued from the house of appellant which was closed from outside. It further appears from the medical report that the bodily injury was caused to the victim which supports her version that victim had resisted the 7 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 810 of 2002 appellant from committing the offence. The evidence of victim girl as well as other prosecution witnesses are credible and trustworthy.
16. In the above circumstances, it can safely be concluded that the prosecution has able to prove the charge upon appellant beyond any reasonable doubt. The judgment of conviction dated 24th August, 2002 and order of sentence dated 26th August, 2002 passed by Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Trial No.178 of 2001 is hereby, confirm.
17. In the result, finding no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly, dismissed. Since the appellant is on bail, his bail is cancelled. He is directed to surrender in the court below for serving out the remaining part of the sentence. The court below is also directed to issue processes forthwith, compelling the surrender / production of the appellant in Court below, for undergoing the sentence.
18. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this Judgment.
(B.B. Mangalmurti, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, 11th October, 2018 Anit/A.F.R.