Ranjay Ram vs The State Of Bihar

Date : 11-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 26.07.2017 and the order of sentence dated 28.07.2017 passed by the learned Court of Fast Track-II, Madhubani in Sessions Trial No. 135 of 2016 arising out of Arer P.S. Case No. 45 of 2013, G.R. No. 998 of 2013, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for committing offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for committing offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fines, he has further been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for each offence. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant, namely Lalan Jha, was employed as a Security Guard at Mumbai, while his wife, namely Punita Devi, resided in the village with their two minor children. It is alleged that on 18.05.2013, their younger son fell ill and Punita Devi left the house along with the appellant, who was their neighbour, on the pretext of taking the child for treatment. Thereafter, neither Punita Devi nor the child returned home. The informant returned from Mumbai and, on making inquiries, learnt that the appellant had taken his wife and the minor child to Mumbai. On the basis of the said allegation, the present case was instituted and, after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

In order to establish the charges, the prosecution examined altogether eight witnesses. P.W.-1, namely Parmila Devi, mother of the informant, supported the prosecution case to some extent. P.W.-2, namely Digember Jha; P.W.-3, namely Birju Ram and P.W.-4, namely Ganpat Jha, did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. P.W.-5, namely Lalan Jha, is the informant. P.W.-6, namely Punita Devi, is the victim. P.W.-7, namely Manoj Kumar Srivastava, is the Judicial Magistrate, who proved the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. P.W.-8, namely Sanjay Kumar, is the Investigating Officer, who proved the investigation and submission of charge-sheet. No defence witness was examined.

After hearing the parties and upon consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him in the manner indicated hereinabove.

Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence on several grounds. The principal submission is that the victim herself has not supported the prosecution case and, therefore, the basic allegation against the appellant is not established beyond reasonable doubt. It is further submitted that several prosecution witnesses have been declared hostile and the evidence of the informant also suffers from material infirmities. Learned counsel submits that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of conviction and submitted that the evidence of the informant, the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the evidence of the Judicial Magistrate and Investigating Officer sufficiently establish the prosecution case.

Having heard the parties and upon consideration of the material on record, this Court finds that in this case, P.Ws.-2, 3 and 4 have not supported the prosecution case and were declared hostile. More importantly, the evidence of the victim, who is the material witness in respect of the allegations under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, does not lend sufficient support to the prosecution case. The mere proof of her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by P.W.-7 cannot, by itself, substitute substantive evidence establishing the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

The evidence of the informant, who was admittedly not present at the alleged occurrence, also requires corroboration from reliable and substantive evidence. In the present case, the prosecution evidence, when considered as a whole, does not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant abducted or compelled the victim to accompany him or that he committed any sexual assault upon her in the manner alleged. The circumstances appearing on record, coupled with the absence of consistent and reliable support from the material witnesses, create a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case.

It is well settled that the burden lies upon the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. In the present case, the evidence available on record falls short of the standard required for sustaining the conviction under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant is, therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 26.07.2017 and the order of sentence dated 28.07.2017 passed by the learned Court of Fast Track-II, Madhubani in Sessions Trial No. 135 of 2016 arising out of Arer P.S. Case No. 45 of 2013 (G.R. No. 998 of 2013) are hereby set aside.

The appellant, above named, is acquitted of the charges and is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond, in connection with this case.

Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed.

Interlocutory application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.