Ram Prasad Rana vs State Of Jharkhand

The sole appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction under section 376 IPC dated 24.5.2001 and the order of sentence of R.I. for ten years dated 25.5.2001 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge- Koderma in Sessions Trial No. 306 of 1999.

The appellant, namely, Ram Prasad Rana has been granted bail by this court vide order dated 17.3.2005.

Informant of this case is the victim girl. Her fardbeyan was recorded on 7.2.1999 at about 14:00 hrs. at Behradih Primary School maidan. She has alleged that about 8-9 months before when she was returning from a marriage function at the house of her uncle Kartik Rana, at about 8-8:30 p.m. in the night, the appellant forcibly sexually assaulted her. She has alleged that the appellant promised to marry her and when she felt pain in her abdomen she informed her mother about the occurrence. However, she admits that about one month after the appellant had sexually assaulted her, she had consulted a doctor and she was informed that she is pregnant. On the basis of her statement, Koderma P.S. Case No. 26 of 1999 has been registered against the appellant under section 376/315 IPC. During the trial, the prosecution has examined altogether seven witnesses; the victim girl is PW-1 and her mother has been examined as PW-2. The grandmother of the victim girl and her father have also been examined by the prosecution.

Dr. Shanti Hembram-PW-6 who has medically examined the victim girl has observed as under:

"Opinion- There is evidence of recent delivery of a nearly term baby."

By now it is firmly established that on the basis of sole testimony of the prosecutrix conviction of an accused under section 376 IPC can be recorded. It is not a requirement in law that in every case under section 376 IPC the prosecution must produce medical evidence. If the evidence of the prosecutrix is found otherwise unblemished and unimpeachable conviction under section 376 IPC can be recorded. However, there are exceptions to these propositions, such as, a medical evidence wherever it is possible and the "probability theory".

The defence set up by the appellant is that he was being forced to marry the victim girl and when he refused he was implicated in this case falsely.

The victim girl and the appellant are relatives; the victim girl is sister-in-law of the appellant. Whatever may be the reason; the victim girl has stated that the appellant promised to marry her, the fact remains that a First Information Report has been lodged about 8-9 months after the alleged occurrence. The victim girl admits that about one month after the occurrence she was informed that she is pregnant, still she has not informed her parents. She has informed her mother about 8-9 months after the actual occurrence. There is no scientific investigation carried by the police; no report on DNA test of the victim girl and the appellant has been produced. It has also come on record that the victim girl gave birth to a dead child. We further find that the evidence of the victim girl in the court is cryptic. She has not given other factual description relating to the incident. Her uncle, namely, Kartik Rana has not been examined by the prosecution during the trial.

In our opinion, the aforesaid circumstances throw a considerable doubt on the story of the incident as narrated by the victim girl.

In view of the above discussions, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under section 376 IPC against the appellant and, therefore, his conviction for the said offence and the sentence passed against him by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-Koderma in S.T. No. 306 of 1999 are set-aside.

The appellant namely Ram Prasad Rana is acquitted of the charges levelled against him and he is discharged of liability of the bail-bonds furnished by him.

In the result, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 180 of 2001 is allowed

Let the lower court record be transmitted to the court concerned, forthwith.