Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1516 (JHR)

Telesfor Khalkho v. State of Jharkhand

2009-11-30

PRADEEP KUMAR

body2009
JUDGMENT By Court: Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 27.04.2001 and order of sentence dated 28.04.2001 passed by Shri Hari Bhushan Prasad Sinha, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega in Sessions Trial No. 286 of 1997 by which judgment he found the appellant Telesfor Khalkho guilty under Sections 376 and 451 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and one year under Section 451 of the I.P.C and he further directed that the sentences shall run concurrently. 3. It is submitted learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant Telesfor Khalkho is next door neighbor of the informant and he used to call her Mami and it appears that he has falsely been implicated in this case and as such the appellant may be acquitted from the charges levelled against him. 4. On the other hand learned counsel for the State has submitted that the appellant taking advantage that there is no door in the house and there was marriage in the neighborhood he entered the house by force and after closing mouth of the prosecutrix committed rape upon her and then he was caught hold by the prosecutrix and by the witnesses at the place of occurrence itself and all the witnesses have supported the fact in the Court and as such he has rightly been convicted and it requires no interference by the Court. 5. After hearing both the parties and going through the records, I find that prosecution case was started on the basis of farebeyan given by the informant P.W. 6 Thedora Kujur stating there in that on 29.04.1997 at 10.00 P.M. in the night when she was sleeping in her room which had no door along with her two young children namely Roshni Kujur and Deonish Kujur then suddenly her neighbor Telesfor Khalkho entered the house and by opening chain of his paint suddenly close her mouth and started committing rape upon her. When he wanted to ran away after committing rape she caught hold of his collar and started making hulla, whereupon her children woke up and then villagers also came and caught him and produced him before the police. 6. When he wanted to ran away after committing rape she caught hold of his collar and started making hulla, whereupon her children woke up and then villagers also came and caught him and produced him before the police. 6. On the basis of said F.I.R. police registered a case under Sections 376 & 448 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation submitted charge sheet against the petitioners. 7. Since, the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after taking cognizance of the case, committed the case to the Court of Sessions and finally the case was tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega, where the charges were framed and the appellant was convicted as foresaid. 8. It appears that in course of trial prosecution has examined eight witnesses. P.W. 1 is Laban Lugun, P.W. 2 is Suleman Kujur, P.W. 3 is William Kujur, P.W. 4 is Firu Oraon, P.W. 5 is Bonifas Kujur, P.W. 6 is informant-Thedora Kujur, P.W. 7 is Roshni Kujur, P.W. 8 is the Investigating Officer-Ram Nandan Prasad. 9. P.W. 1 is Laban Lugun who is the formal witness while P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 are the victim and her daughter. Both the informant-victim and her daughter have supported the fact that in the night of the occurrence when the informant was sleeping with her daughter Roshni Kujur and young son Deonis Kujur then the accused entered her house which had no door and after opening his pant’s chain and closing mouth of the informant committed rape upon her and when he wanted to ran away after committing rape, she caught hold of his cloth by collar and started making hulla, whereupon her children as also her neighbors came and caught hold of him and he was produced before the police; where she gave her statement and after the statement was read over to her she signed the same. She proved her signature on the fardbeyan as Ext. 1/1. She also proved the signature of witnesses and F.I.R. as Ext. 1 from the report. It also appears that the other witnesses namely P.W. 2 Suleman Kujur, P.W. 3 William Kujur, P.W. 4 Firu Oraon, P.W. 5 Bonifas Kujur who are neighbors of the informant. She proved her signature on the fardbeyan as Ext. 1/1. She also proved the signature of witnesses and F.I.R. as Ext. 1 from the report. It also appears that the other witnesses namely P.W. 2 Suleman Kujur, P.W. 3 William Kujur, P.W. 4 Firu Oraon, P.W. 5 Bonifas Kujur who are neighbors of the informant. They have stated that hearing hulla of the victim lady P.W. 6 they came to her house on the date of occurrence at about 10.00 P.M. and found that victim lady has caught hold of the accused with his collar. At that time the chain of his pant was also open and he committed rape upon the victim lady. He was taken to the police station where the informant gave her statement and the accused was taken into custody. 10. Thus, it appears that all the witnesses have proved that the accused entered the house of the informant by force and committed rape upon her. The I.O.-P.W. 8 has proved formal F.I.R. and fardbeyan and given description of the place of occurrence. 11. Thus, it appears that witnesses have proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the appellant committed rape upon the informant after forcibly entering into the house and as such his conviction under Section 376 as also under Section 441 are confirmed. 12. However, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is throughout in jail custody from the date of occurrence since 29.04.1997. In that view of the matter, it appears that the appellant has remained in custody for more than ten years. In that view of the matter, he is directed to release forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 13. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.