Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 922 (JHR)

Sonadhan Marandi v. State of Jharkhand

2010-09-21

PRADEEP KUMAR

body2010
JUDGMENT : PRADEEP KUMAR, J. 1. On repeated call, nobody appears on behalf of the Appellant to argue this case. 2. On the request of the Court, Mr. Tapas Roy argued this case as Amicus Curie. 3. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 05.07.2002 and order of sentence dated 08.07.2002 respectively passed in S.C. No. 130 of 2001 by Shri Abhay Shankar Mishra, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka, by which judgment he found the Appellant guilty under Sections 376 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him R.I. for seven years u/s 376 of Indian Penal Code and also to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to pay the fine further to under R.I. for six months and R.I. for one year u/s 323 of the Indian Penal Code and directed that both sentences will run concurrently. 4. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that appeal was admitted, but no bail was granted to the Appellant while admitting the appeal on 17.02.2003. Subsequently, the prayer for ball of the Appellant was refused on 02.04.2003. Thereafter, the Appellant remained in custody for more than seven years, as such, he has served the full sentence and the appeal has become infructuous and he may be released. 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State has also admitted that even during the trial the accused was being produced from jail custody from 16.05.2009 till the conviction on 08.07.2002 and thereafter, no bail was granted to him. 6. After hearing both the parties and going through the evidences, I find that prosecution case was started on the basis of fardbeyan given by the victim/informant, Chinimini Hembrom, on 27.11.2000 stating therein that on 25.11.2000 at about 7-8 A.M. in the morning, she was going near the forest for grazing her cattle and all of a sudden one Sonadhan Marandi came there and began to talk in filthy language. When she objected then he caught hold of her and beaten her by fists and slaps after that forcibly fell her down on earth and torn her cloth and committed rape upon her. When she raised alarm, her grandmother, Sukulmani Murmu, who was harvesting paddy crops nearby, came there to save her. In the meantime, when the accused saw her grant-mother, he fled away from there towards the forest. 7. When she raised alarm, her grandmother, Sukulmani Murmu, who was harvesting paddy crops nearby, came there to save her. In the meantime, when the accused saw her grant-mother, he fled away from there towards the forest. 7. On the basis of the said fardbeyan, police registered a case u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation, police submitted charge-sheet in the case under Sections 376 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Since, the case was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, after taking cognizance learned Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions arid subsequently, the case was tried by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka, who found the Appellant guilty as aforesaid. 8. It appears that in the course of the trial, the prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses. P.W. 1. Sukulmuni Murmu, grant-mother of the victim. P.W. 2. Chinimini Hembrom, victim/informant of the case. P.W. 3 Chudhki Hembrom. P.W.4. Pakku Kisku. P.W.5. Maheshwar Singh, Investigating Officer of the case. P.W.6. Dr. Mirdula Bibhakar, is a doctor. It also appears that Defence has also examined as many as five witnesses. D.W. 1. Luvu Hansda. D.W. 2. Shivadhan Hansda. D.W. 3. Joyal Hansda. D.W. 4. Suresh Murmu. D.W. 5. Gyaneshwar Tudu. The informant, P.W. 2, chinimini Hembrom, has supported the prosecution case and stated that she was grazing her cattle near the forest and all of a sudden one Sonadhan Marandi came there and caught hold of her. When she objected, he beaten her by lathi and dragged towards the bush and torn her clothes and committed rape upon her. When she raised alarm, her grand mother, Sukulmani Murmu, came there. She narrated the story to her grant-mother. When he saw her grant-mother, he fled away from there. She was subsequently examined by the doctor. She identified the accused in Court. In her cross-examination, she stated that she has no enmity with the Appellant, Sonadhan Marandi. P.W. 1, Sukulmuni Murmu, grant-mother of the victim, stated that on the date of occurrence she was uprooting the paddy in her field. When she was returning to home for taking food, she heard hulla of her daughter-in-law, Chinimini Hembrom then she went near the bush and found there that Sonadhan Marandi was committing rape upon her daughter-in-law. When he saw her, he fled away from there. When she was returning to home for taking food, she heard hulla of her daughter-in-law, Chinimini Hembrom then she went near the bush and found there that Sonadhan Marandi was committing rape upon her daughter-in-law. When he saw her, he fled away from there. She found injury on the body of her daughter-in-law, chinimini Hembrom. P.W. 4. Pakku Kisku has supported the prosecution case and stated that occurrence took place one year ago and he and chinimini Hembrom, were grazing their cattle. For some, time, he did not see her, but after some time she came there and told him that Sonadhan Marandi raped her. P.W.5. Maheshwar Singh, Investigating Officer of the case, has proved the F.I.R. and fardbeyan as Exts. 2 and 2/1. P.W.6. Dr. Mirdula Bibhakar, is a doctor, who has examined the victim, Chinimini Hembrom, did not confirm whether she was raped or not, but as far as age is concerned according to Secondary Sex Character number of teeth and X-ray report the age of the victim in between 12 to 14 years. D.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 5 stated that the Appellant has falsely been implicated due to some dispute with regard to grazing of cattle in the field between the Appellant and grant-mother of the informant. Thus, in the absence of any allegation with regard to previous dispute or any evidence produced before the Court by the Appellant, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses fully proved that rape was committed by the Appellant, in that view of the matter, I find that prosecution has proved the charges under Sections 376 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and rightly found guilty as aforesaid. Since, the Appellant is remained in custody for more than seven years which appears that he was in custody right from the date of session trial started before i.e. in the custody since 16.05.2001 as per the Sessions Court record is remained for more than seven years. In that view of the matter, Appellant is directed to be released forthwith, if he is not already released and if not wanted in any other case. 9. With the aforesaid direction, this appeal is dismissed.