Sanatan Murmu @ Sonatan Murmu vs State Of Jharkhand

Shree Chandrashekhar, J

The sole appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction under section 376 IPC and the order of sentence of R.I for life, both dated 28.11.2007,

passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Trial No. 156 of 2005.

The appellant is in judicial custody since 28.02.2005.

On the basis of fardbeyan of Sushil Hansda alleging that in the night of 22.02.2005 the appellant-Sanatan Murmu @ Sonatan Murmu has sexually

assaulted his daughter namely, Pinky Kumari Hansda, Jama P.S Case No. 13 of 2005 was lodged on 25.02.2005 against the appellant under section

376 IPC.

During the trial, prosecution has examined altogether 7 witnesses; the informant-Sushil Hansda is P.W. 5 and the doctors who were members of

the Medical Board have been examined as P.W. 2 and P.W. 3. Dr. Aruna Chatterjee-P.W. 2 has prepared the injury report. She has observed as

under ;

“on external examination no mark of injury was found, however, on internal examination lacerated wound of 2 c.m. X 1.5 c.m. X 1 c.m. over lower

part of perineum has been detected by the doctor. In the opinion of the doctor this injury was simple in nature, caused by hard and blunt substanceâ€​.

On the basis of the evidences laid before him, the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka has found the appellant guilty under section 376

IPC and, accordingly, convicted him for the said offence.

Mr. Yogesh Modi, the learned Amicus referring to the cross-examination of the informant-P.W.5 submits that the prosecution has failed to explain

the delay in lodging the First Information Report and admission of the appellant during his cross-examination raise considerable doubt on the

prosecution's case.

As against the above, the learned A.P.P referring to the evidence of Dr. Aruna Chatterjee-P.W.2 who has found hymen of the victim girl ruptured

and explanation by the informant why the First Information Report has been lodged on 25.02.2005 submits that conviction of the appellant under

section 376 IPC is well-founded.

The story of the incident narrated by the informant indicates presence of the wife of Paltan and another guest in the house of the appellant-Sanatan

Murmu @ Sonatan Murmu when the informant has visited his house on 22.02.2005 for dinner, on the invitation of the appellant. The informant has

admitted that at the time when the alleged incident has taken place his other daughter was present in the house. He says that when he heard cries of

his daughter he rushed to his home where he found the appellant sexually assaulting his elder daughter. The victim girl was produced in the court,

however, the learned Judge has declined to record her statement as she was not found mature enough. The informant says that on the next day he

went to the police station, however, the police has not recorded his statement, but then, in his cross-examination the informant has also stated that his

daughter was medically examined on 24.02.2005 (para 11). The evidence brought on record would disclose that she was examined only on

25.02.2005. During his cross-examination, the informant has also admitted that three days after the incident treatment was given to his daughter (para

12). The informant has not disclosed the name of the doctor and the place where his daughter was medically examined. The prosecution also has

failed to lead any evidence on the aforesaid aspect of the matter. To make the prosecution's case miserable, the independent witnesses-P.W. 4 and

P.W. 6 have turned hostile. The appellant has taken a plea that due to land dispute, the informant has falsely implicated him in the case. The medical

evidence would disclose that the doctor could not give any opinion whether the victim was sexually assaulted or not and the pathological report would

disclose that spermatozoa was not found either alive or dead.

In the aforesaid facts, after examining the records of Sessions Trial No. 156 of 2005, we come to the conclusion that conviction of the appellant

under section 376 IPC is not sustainable. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction under section 376 IPC and the order of sentence of R.I for life, both

dated 28.11.2007 passed in Sessions Trial No. 156 of 2005 are set-aside.

The appellant namely, Sanatan Murmu @ Sonatan Murmu shall be released forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case.

In the result, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 190 of 2008 is allowed.

We appreciate the able assistance rendered by Mr. Yogesh Modi, the learned Amicus. He has prepared a list of dates and short synopsis on the

prosecution evidence. The assistance rendered by Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, the learned A.P.P is also appreciated.

The Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee shall reimburse the learned Amicus on submission of bill(s). He shall be paid Rs.

5500/- for each effective date of hearing, but subject to the cap as provided under the Notification dated 23.11.2017.

Let a copy of the Judgment be transmitted to the court concerned through FAX.

Let the lower-court records be sent to the court concerned, forthwith.