Kadu Lohra vs The State Of Jharkhand

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 28.09.2004 and order of sentence dated 29.09.2004 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II, Khunti in Sessions Trial No. 573 of 2003, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. of seven years.

The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 08.04.2003, in the morning the informant went her Bari to look after vegetable plants, thereafter at 12:00 hours in day time, when the informant was working in the Bari, the appellant came there and showing a knife and asked her to sleep and on denial by the informant, the appellant forcefully knock down on the ground and raped her twice. As a result of which, her petticoat became red due to blood. The appellant threatened her of dire consequences. Thereafter, the informant went to her house and narrated about the occurrence to her bhabhi. It is further alleged that previously also the appellant tried to outrage the modesty of the informant. When the villagers came to know about the occurrence, then the villagers assaulted the appellant and handed over to police.

On the basis of above information, Karra P.S. Case No. 21 of 2003 was registered for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C.

After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted for the aforesaid offence against sole accused. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions, where Sessions Case was registered. The accused denied the charge leveled against him and claimed to be tried.

In course of trial, altogether 07 witnesses were examined by the prosecution apart from following documentary evidences:-Exhibit-1 : Medical Report of victim. Exhibit-2 : Signature of Mangra Horo on the Fardbeyan. Copy of X-ray report has been marked ‘X’ for identification.

On the other hand, the case of defence is denial from occurrence and of false implication. However, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence.

The learned trial court, after scrutinizing the evidence available on record, recorded findings about guilt of the appellant for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. of 07 years, which has been assailed in this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the learned trial court has miserably failed to properly appreciate the evidence of witnesses in right perspective and arrived at wrong conclusion. The prosecutrix herself has made self-contradictory evidence that the appellant has committed rape on point of knife, but in her cross-examination, she has stated that she has not seen the knife. The appellant has been falsely implicated in this case due to previous enmity. The prosecutrix does not appear to be absolutely reliable witness and her testimony does not find corroboration from any independent source, as such, conviction and sentence of the appellant is fit to be set aside and this appeal may be allowed.

On the other hand, learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the prosecutrix has categorically proved the commission of rape in the day light by the present appellant, which find corroboration from medical evidence available on record. There is no valid reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellant. This appeal is devoid of merits and is fit to be dismissed.

I have gone through the record the case along with impugned judgment in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side.

The only point for consideration of this appeal is, as to whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence suffers from any serious error or law calling for any interference in this appeal or not?

Before imparting my verdict on the above point, it is pertinent to apprise with the testimony of the witnesses examined during trial.

The most important witness of this case is prosecutrix herself, who has been examined as P.W.-2 and the Doctor, who has medically examined the prosecutrix, has been examined as P.W.-1.

P.W.-1 Dr. Chandrawat Boi Poi is the Doctor, who has examined the prosecutrix and found the following:-

She has given opinion about the age 16 years and also referred for X-Ray.

She has proved the injury Report marked as Exhibit-1.

In her cross-examination, she has stated that the age of the victim girl may be from 16 to 18 years.

P.W.-2 is the victim girl. She has stated that on the alleged day at 12:00 hours, she was working in her Bari, the accused came there and showed knife and made her fell near the Banana tree and closed her mouth and raped her, due to that her Petticoat became red from the blood, which she cleaned. Accused had threatened her to kill, if she disclosed the said incident. She came to her house and told to her Bhabhi about the occurrence and on the next day, she told to villagers.

In her cross-examination, at para-8, she has stated that she did not see the knife, but accused told about knife and accused was in drunken state.

P.W.-4 is the Doctor, who did X-ray of victim girl and opined about the age from the X-Ray Plate that victim is about 16 years old.

From the aforesaid discussion of ocular testimony of witnesses and medical evidence, it is crystal clear that the prosecutrix (P.W.-2) has categorically stated about commission of rape by the appellant with her at 12:00 hours of day light while she was working in her Bari, which is also corroborated by the medical evidence. The sole defence of appellant is previous enmity, but no concrete evidence has been brought on record in this regard. Non-production of seized material and other corroborative evidence does not create any doubt in the prosecution story. It is settled principle of law that conviction of the accused can be based on the solitary testimony of prosecutrix when she is absolutely reliable. There is no requirement of any corroboration from independent source. Even medical report is corroborative piece of evidence and it cannot take place of substantive evidence.

In the case of Krishan Kumar Malik vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2011) 7 SCC 130, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that to hold an accused guilty for commission of an offence of rape, the solitary evidence of prosecutrix is sufficient, provided the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of sterling quality.

In the instant case, there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution story as depicted by prosecutrix.

In view of the above discussion and reasons, I find that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant does not suffer from any error of law calling for any interference in this appeal. I do not find any merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed.

The appellant is on bail. His bail bond is hereby cancelled.

The appellant is directed to surrender before the concerned Trial Court within two months from the date of this judgment and receive the remaining period of sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court, failing which, the learned Trial Court shall take all coercive steps in securing the attendance of the appellant and sending him under proper conviction warrant to jail custody for undergoing the remaining period of sentence awarded to him.

Pending I.A., if any, stand disposed of.

I take this opportunity to appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr. Sunil Singh, learned Amicus Curiae and direct the Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee to extend the stipulated fee as per notification of High Court Legal Services Committee to Mrs. Shail Lakra, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

Office is directed to ensure that a copy of this order is served upon Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee.

Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.