Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 570 (JHR)

RANJEET LOHRA v. STATE OF BIHAR

2001-08-14

D.N.PRASAD

body2001
Judgment : D. N. PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) THIS criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 21-8-1998 passed by Shri D. P. Singh, 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No. 157 of 1997, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years on each count. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case in brief is that the informant Sharda Devi lodged a first information report alleging therein that she resides in the Marwari Womens College Campus, Ranchi and the accused/appellant Ranjeet Lohra used to visit her house. It is further alleged that on 10-9-1976 Kaushalya Devi, the mother of the accused-appellant came to her house and talked with her daughter Lalita. Thereafter Lalita left the house by saying that she is going to her friends house. She came to know later on that her daughter Lalita was seen going towards Bazar with the appellant-Ranjeet Lohra. On enquiry from Kaushalya, she did not reply satisfactorily. It was alleged that the appellant-Ranjeet Lohra took away her daughter who is aged about 16 years with a purpose to marry. Accordingly, the first information report was registered. The police investigated into the case and submitted charge-sheet. ( 3 ) THE appellant appeared before the Court below and charges under Sections 366, 376, 328 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the two accused persons, namely accused-appellant Ranjeet Lohra and accused Kaushalya Devi, the mother of the appellant. However the trial Court did not find the case being substantiated by the prosecution and as such accused Kaushlya Devi was acquitted from the charges. ( 4 ) THE defence case as alleged that Lalita left her house willingly and she is major as well as the appellant never committed rape on her. ( 5 ) THE witnesses were examined in the Court below and after hearing both sides and considering the evidence on record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner as stated above, hence this appeal. ( 5 ) THE witnesses were examined in the Court below and after hearing both sides and considering the evidence on record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner as stated above, hence this appeal. ( 6 ) AT the very outset, it may be noted here that there is no denial that Lalita was with the accused from the very inception of the case and both of them had gone to Calcutta on 10-9-1996. It is also the admitted position that both came back from Calcutta on 13-9-1996 on pursuation of the brother-in-law of the victim girl Lalita and one Bapi. ( 7 ) P. W. 1 is the informant who clearly deposed that Kaushalya Devi had come to her house and her daughter went with Kaushalya Devi on the pretext that she is going to the house of her friend. She started searching her daughter but she could not be traced and she came back on 13-9-1996. When she came to know that she was taken by Ranjeet Lohra, the appellant and she was kept in the house of the Mausi of Ranjeet Lohra. She also stated in her cross-examination that Kaushalya Devi is also a Class- IV employee in the said College and both were residing in the same Campus. She further deposed that she had sent her son-in-law to Calcutta to trace out of her daughter. ( 8 ) P. W. 2 is the victim girl who stated that she left her house on the request of Kaushalya Devi and she had told her mother that she is going to the house of her friend. She further stated that she was taken to village Lohrakocha and she was given breakfast and after taking breakfast, she became unconscious and thereafter she found to be in Calcutta along with Ranjeet Lohra. She was kept in a house there. She further stated that the appellant-Ranjeet Lohra also committed rape on her forcibly in spite of her repeated objections. She stated in her cross-examination that she came back along with Ranjeet Lohra and her brother-in-law Keshar and Bapi were also with them. ( 9 ) P. W. 3 is the Doctor who examined the victim girl Lalita and found her age between 18 to 19 years. According to her, Lalita was mensurating since three days as stated by the girl. ( 9 ) P. W. 3 is the Doctor who examined the victim girl Lalita and found her age between 18 to 19 years. According to her, Lalita was mensurating since three days as stated by the girl. ( 10 ) P. W. 4 stated that he had seen Lalita and Ranjeet Lohra as well as Kaushalya Devi at the relevant time and thereafter he learnt that Ranjeet Lohra fled away with Lalita. ( 11 ) P. W. 5 is the Investigating Officer who submitted the charge-sheet after investigation. One witness has also been examined from the side of the defence. D. W. 1 Bapi is a formal witness and he proved some photographs and one diary. ( 12 ) FROM the medical report it is evident that Lalita was aged about 18 to 19 years at the relevant time. No any other witness has been produced to controvert the said evidence thus it can safely be held that Lalita, the victim girl was major at the relevant time. From the evidence of Lalita it is also clear that she left the house at her own will on the pretext that she has been going to her friends house. It may be mentioned here that the trial Court did not find the case true under Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code and as such the question of administering any drug does not arise as well as there is no cogent evidence on this score produced from the side of the prosecution. There is no doubt that Lalita accompanied Ranjeet Lohra from Ranchi to Calcutta and she never made any objection or raised any cry which would apparently go to show that she had left her house with her own consent and she was also major at the relevant time. Thus I find that the offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out in the instant case. There is also no evidence to show that Lalita had ever been induced to compel her marriage, rather she flatedly denied about performing the marriage in Kalimandir at Calcutta. Thus considering the above facts and circumstances, it is evident that the prosecution has totally failed to establish the charge under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and, therefore, he is acquitted thereunder. Thus considering the above facts and circumstances, it is evident that the prosecution has totally failed to establish the charge under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and, therefore, he is acquitted thereunder. ( 13 ) SO far the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is no doubt that Lalita was with the accused from 10/09/1996 to 1 3/09/1996. The victim girl P. W. 2 emphatically stated in her evidence that the appellant Ranjeet Lohra committed rape on her forcibly in spite of the objection made. The victim was examined by the doctor on 14-9-1996 and she opined that no positive evidence of sexual intercourse found. At the same time, she stated that the victim is mensurating since three days as stated by the girl. The victim Lalita denied specifically in her evidence that she was under the period of mensuration at the relevant time. It is surprising as to how the doctor, who was said to have examined the girl reported that she is mensurating since three days as told by the girl which means that the doctor did not examine her in proper way. Had she been examined properly, the doctor could have easily said this thing in specific manner. Moreover the girl/victim denied this thing and so such reporting by the doctor appears to be redundant. Moreover, the victim girl went with the appellant Ranjeet Lohra on 10-9-1996 and they reached to Calcutta on 11-9-1996 and thereafter they came back on 13-9-1996. Even if she was under mensuration period since three days i. e. from 12-9-1996, so the victim was admittedly not under the mensuration period on 11-9-1996 when admittedly Ranjeet Lohra had reached to Calcutta on that very date with the victim girl. In view of the statement of the girl which is very definite and specific in this respect, cannot be thrown away when there is no cogent or solid evidence rebutting the said statement. ( 14 ) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted vehemently that the victim was the consenting party and she was major as well as the doctor did not find any sign of rape and as such the offence under S. 376 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. ( 14 ) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted vehemently that the victim was the consenting party and she was major as well as the doctor did not find any sign of rape and as such the offence under S. 376 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. It is also argued that the victim girl was under mensurating period and so the question of rape does not arise. It is also argued that the brother-in-law and one Bapi had gone to Calcutta to trace out the girl, so there was no possibility for the appellant to commit rape on her. The submission of the learned counsel have got no substance in view of the fact that the victim girl very consistently and emphatically stated about committing rape forcibly which finds support from the evidence collected as the victim was kept confined in the room for such a long period. ( 15 ) SECTION 375 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under :-"375. Rape.- A man is said to commit "rape" who, except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the six following descriptions :- first - Against her will. Secondly - Without her consent. Thirdly - With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested in fear of death or of hurt. Fourthly.- With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband and her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married. Fifthly.- With her consent, when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxicating or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent. Sixthly.- With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age. "first and Secondly circumstances falling under the definition of Sexual Offences are "against her will" and "without her consent". Thus it is obvious that even if the girl was major and she had accompanied the appellant up to Calcutta, this does not mean that she could be raped. "first and Secondly circumstances falling under the definition of Sexual Offences are "against her will" and "without her consent". Thus it is obvious that even if the girl was major and she had accompanied the appellant up to Calcutta, this does not mean that she could be raped. The girl/victim clearly deposed in so many words that she was raped forcibly in spite of the resistance and her only evidence is sufficient to establish that the appellant committed rape. ( 16 ) IT is well settled that if conviction is based on the evidence of the prosecutrix without any corroboration, it will not be illegal on that sole ground. The prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put at par with an accomplice, she is in fact a victim girl. ( 17 ) THE learned counsel also drew my attention towards some photographs with the appellant but those photographs will not help much to the defence in any way. There appears overwhelming and sufficient evidence against the appellant in respect of the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code for committing rape. Thus I find that the learned Court below has rightly convicted the appellant for the said offence. ( 18 ) SO far the sentence is concerned, it is apparent that the appellant Ranjeet Lohra was remanded in this case as far back as on 14-9-1996 and since then he has been in custody. Thus he has already served the sentence of about five years. ( 19 ) IN the above facts and circumstances, the sentence awarded by the trial Court is modified and the appellant-Ranjeet Lohra is sentenced to the period already undergone by him in jail. ( 20 ) IN the result, the appeal is dismissed with modification in the sentence as indicated above. The appellant-Ranjeet Lohra is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. --- *** --- .