Sanjay Lohar vs The State Of Jharkhand

Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. :

Heard Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23-07-2025 (sentence passed on 26-07-2025) passed by Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in S.T. No. 125/2022, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under section 376(2)(n) IPC and in default in payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 03 months. The appellant has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 06 months along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 506 IPC and in default in payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 01 month. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

The prosecution case arises out of the written report of Victim ‘X’ in which it has been alleged that Sanjay Lohar (appellant) who used to frequent the house of Victim ‘X’ had all of a sudden entered into her house and committed rape upon her and had also threatened her that if the incident is disclosed to anyone, she will be defamed in society. It has been stated that the informant, out of fear, kept quiet. The accused used to call Victim ‘X’ and also used to give threatening that if she does not come, she will be defamed. On 06-02-2021, all the family members of Victim ‘X’ had gone to attend a puja and she was alone, when the accused came and committed rape upon her and when her husband entered all of a sudden, the accused had fled away.

Based on the aforesaid allegations, Manoharpur P.S. Case No. 14/2021 was instituted under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as S.T. No. 125/2022. Charge was framed against the accused under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC which was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses in support of its case:

P.W.1 Victim ‘X’ has stated that the incident is of the year 2021 at around 09:00PM, when the accused came to her house and finding her alone, he had committed rape upon her and also threatened her that if the incident is disclosed to anyone, he will defame her in the village. On 02-06-2021, on the occasion of Guna Puja, her family members had gone to attend the Puja when at 08:00PM, the accused came and finding her alone, thrashed her on the bed and committed rape upon her. When the accused was involved in the act of rape her husband came at which the accused fled away after giving a threat. She has proved her signature in her written report which has been marked as Exhibit- P-1/PW-1. She had given consent for her medical examination and her signature in the consent form has been proved and marked as Exhibit- P-2/PW-1. She has also proved her signature in her 164 Cr.P.C. statement which has been marked as Exhibit- P-3/PW-1.

In cross-examination, she has deposed that her husband had caught her red-handed with the accused and had also assaulted her. She had indulged in physical intimacy with the accused, but her husband had never caught her in such act. The case was instituted because she was caught red-handed with the accused. Whenever sexual relationship was established between her and the accused, her husband was not at home. She had never raised any alarm because there are other houses in the vicinity.

P.W.2 Babulal Tanti is the husband of Victim ‘X’ who has stated that on the date of occurrence, his wife was alone as he had gone to attend the puja in the village. He had returned to his home at 05:00PM and had thereafter left for his father's house where he was asked to stay back for dinner. Shankar Lohar had, at that point of time, had gone to his father's house as well and he had asked Shankar Lohar to bring his family. He has stated that Shankar Lohar brought his mother and daughter and he left in order to bring his wife. When even after expiry of a considerable time, his wife did not come, he had gone to his house at 08:00PM and he had seen Shankar Lohar committing rape upon his wife. He had given a danda blow at which Shankar Lohar fled away. His wife had disclosed that Shankar Lohar used to commit rape upon her by giving threats.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had caught his wife and Shankar Lohar red-handed while establishing physical relationship. He had assaulted his wife. His wife had disclosed that previously on 5-6 occasions, both had established sexual relationship. When he had caught his wife red-handed, he had got the case instituted by her.

P.W.3 Suresh Lohar has proved his signature on the arrest memo of the accused which has been marked as Exhibit- P-4.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he has no knowledge about the incident.

P.W.4 Lakhimoni Lohar is the mother of the accused who has also proved her signature on the arrest memo of the accused which has been marked as Exhibit- P-4/1.

In cross-examination, she has deposed that she is not aware about the incident.

P.W.5 Maheshwar Melgandi is the village Munda who has stated that he had heard that the accused had committed rape upon Victim ‘X’ and this was disclosed to him by the husband of victim ‘X’.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that his statement was never recorded by the Police.

P.W.6 Mangal Kerai did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile by the prosecution.

P.W.7 Aniket Kumar was posted as a Sub-Inspector of Police at Manoharpur P.S. and on 03-06-2021, Manoharpur P.S. Case No. 14/2021 was instituted on the written report of victim ‘X’. He has proved the handwriting and signature of the then Officer-in-Charge of Manoharpur P.S. on the written report which has been marked as Exhibit P-1/1/PW-7. He has proved the formal FIR which has been marked as Exhibit- P-5/PW-7. He had recorded the restatement of the informant/Victim ‘X’ and he had inspected the place of occurrence which is the house of victim ‘X’. He had recorded the statement of Babulal Tanti and others. The Victim ‘X’ was got medically examined and her 164 Cr.P.C. statement was also got recorded. He had obtained the medical report and on completion of investigation had submitted charge sheet.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that in course of investigation, it had come to light that there was a close relationship between the families of Victim ‘X’ and the accused.

P.W.8 Dr. Chandrawati Boipai was posted as a Medical Officer in West Singhbhum and on 04-06-2021, she had examined Victim ‘X’ and had found the following:

It has been opined that sexual intercourse had taken place but no recent sign was detected. The medical report has been proved and marked as Exhibit P-6/PW-8.

In cross-examination, she has deposed that as per medical report, there was no sign of rape.

The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he has denied his complicity in the offence.

It has been submitted by Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellant that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 would clearly indicate that there was a relationship between Victim ‘X’ and the appellant and the Victim ‘X’ was a consenting party to the sexual overtures of the appellant. It is apparent from the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that the case was instituted only on account of the Victim ‘X’ being caught red-handed with the appellant indulging in physical intimacy by P.W.2, the husband of Victim ‘X’.

Learned A.P.P. has submitted that the appellant was instrumental in repeatedly committing rape upon Victim ‘X’ and on account of the threat given by the appellant, the Victim ‘X’ was compelled not to disclose about the incident to anyone. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 clearly reveals about such fact and the learned trial court was correct in convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC on proper appreciation of the evidence on record.

We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the trial court records.

The written report of Victim ‘X’ categorizes the manner in which the appellant had sexually exploited Victim ‘X’ on numerous occasions by giving a threatening that if she disclosed about such incidents to anyone, she will be defamed in the society by the appellant. The matter, as per Victim ‘X’, came to light when her husband had returned back from puja which he had gone to attend and had seen the appellant involved in sexual intimacy with victim ‘X’. The only evidence of reckoning is of P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.2 is the husband of Victim ‘X’ who has stated that on the fateful day, he had attended a puja and had come back home at 05:00PM and had again left for his father's house where he stayed back for dinner. P.W.2 had asked the appellant to bring his family to attend the dinner, but the appellant came back with the mother and daughter of P.W.2 and again left to bring his wife. The delay in coming of the appellant with the wife of P.W.2 made P.W.2 visit his house where he had seen the appellant committing rape upon his wife. In cross-examination, P.W.2 has stated that he had caught red-handed both his wife and the appellant establishing sexual relationship and this had enraged him and consequently, he had assaulted his wife and had got his wife to institute the case against the appellant. The evidence of P.W.2 demolishes the allegation of act of rape against the appellant rather establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that she was a consenting party to the sexual overtures of the appellant. This finding is further fortified by the evidence of Victim ‘X’ who has been examined as P.W.1. In her cross-examination, P.W.1 has admitted that she had indulged in sexual intimacy with the appellant whenever her husband was not at home, but she was earlier never caught by her husband indulging in such act. P.W.1 has also stated that there are other houses situated in the vicinity of her house and she had never raised any alarm.

What would transpire from an analysis of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is that the illicit relationship between Victim ‘X’ and the appellant was continuing since long with the appellant frequenting the house of Victim ‘X’ whenever her husband (P.W.2) was not at home and these acts were kept under wraps till the day both were caught red-handed by P.W.2 indulging in sexual relationship. If at all there was force used by the appellant, the neighbours could have been made aware by the Victim ‘X’, but she made it a point not to raise any alarm precisely due to the nature of the relationship existing between the appellant and victim ‘X’. The cross examination of both P.W.1 and P.W.2 reveal that the appellant was caught in a compromising position with P.W.1 by P.W.2. The assault made upon Victim ‘X’ by P.W.2 on discovery of the extent of the adulterous relationship between Victim ‘X’ and the appellant was clothed in a natural human conduct quite contrary to the reaction which would have unfolded had the Victim ‘X’ been subjected to rape.

The scenario depicted above would lead us to conclude that Victim ‘X’ had consented to establish sexual relationship with the appellant on numerous occasions and, therefore, no case of rape is made out against the appellant. The learned trial court has overtly relied on the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 without considering the finer nuances of their cross-examination which gives a different hue to the story initially projected by the prosecution.

Thus, on consideration of the entire facets of the case, we find merit in this appeal and consequently, set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23-07-2025 (sentence passed on 26-07-2025) passed by Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in S.T. No. 125/2022.

This appeal is allowed.

Since the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.

Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands closed.