Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 113 (JHR)

Jolly Das v. State of Jharkhand

2017-01-16

H.C.MISHRA, S.N.PATHAK

body2017
ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the respondent No.2, in the admission stage itself. 2. This acquittal appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 22nd December 2011, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rajmahal, in S.C. Case No.42 of 2002, whereby the accused respondent No.2, who had faced the trial for the offences under Section 376, 417 and 493 of the Indian Penal Code, has been acquitted of the charges. 3. The police case was instituted on the basis of the complaint case filed by the complainant-appellant. The facts of this case, is detailed in the impugned Judgment, show that it is alleged that on 17.2.2000, the appellant had gone to the house of her naighbour Mona Devi for preparing Biri. One Roopwati Devi was also present there and both of them had kept the accused-respondent No.2 inside the room. While working, the appellant demanded water, whereupon, she was asked to go and take the water, which was kept in the room. It is alleged that the appellant went in the room, where she was subjected to rape by the respondent No.2, and even upon alarm raised by the appellant, the above said ladies did not come to her rescue, rather after the occurrence, they asked her to marry the accused-respondent No.2 and they brought the accused in the room, where the accused-respondent No.2 put garland in the neck of the appellant in presence of a photo of a God. Thereafter Roopwati Devi also informed the mother of the respondent No.2, who did not raise any objection. It is alleged that thereafter they used to make sexual relations at the house of said Mona Devi. Subsequently, it is alleged that the accused refused to marry the appellant, when the accused got job in BMP. In the meantime, the appellant had became pregnant of 7 to 8 months. Mainly with these allegations, the complaint case was filed, which was sent for institution of the police case, in which the police submitted charge sheet after investigation and ultimately, the respondent No.2 was put to trial. 4. The impugned Judgment shows the nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Mainly with these allegations, the complaint case was filed, which was sent for institution of the police case, in which the police submitted charge sheet after investigation and ultimately, the respondent No.2 was put to trial. 4. The impugned Judgment shows the nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The defence had also examined one witness, who had proved the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., and the same was marked as Exhibit–B. The said statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. was not proved by the prosecution, apparently because, it was not supporting the appellant's case. 5. The impugned Judgment also shows that PWs 3 to 6, who are the witnesses on the point of alleged Panchayti that had taken place, have not supported the prosecution case and these witnesses have also gone to the extent of stating that they had never seen the appellant and respondent No.2 together. These witnesses were not even declared hostile. The witnesses, including the father of the appellant and the appellant herself, have admitted that prior to filing of the complaint by the appellant, the mother of the respondent No.2 had earlier filed a case upon them and only thereafter, the present case had been filed. It is also admitted that the respondent got a Government job and he refused the marry the appellant and only then the present case was instituted. Even though it is alleged by the appellant, who was examined as PW–8, that the occurrence of rape, had taken place in the house of Mona Devi, where Roopwati Devi were also present, and subsequent acts of sexual relations had also taken place at the house of Mona Devi, but these witnesses have not been examined by the prosecution. Two inmates of the house appear to be examined and they have also stated that they had not seen the appellant and the respondent together. To cap all, even the appellant, who had alleged that she was sexually assaulted in the house of Mona Devi on 17.2.2000 and after that there were sexual relationships between them, in her cross-examination, she has stated she met the respondent only once on 17.2.2000, i.e., the date of occurrence, and thereafter she had not met the respondent. Mainly in view of these contradictions in the prosecution case, the respondent No.2 has been acquitted of the charge. 6. Mainly in view of these contradictions in the prosecution case, the respondent No.2 has been acquitted of the charge. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned Judgment passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal and the respondent No.2 could be convicted on the sole testimony of the appellant, but the Court below has not relied on the same and illegally acquitted the respondent No.2. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that it is a fit case, in which the Judgment of acquittal of the respondent No.2 be set-aside and the respondent be convicted and sentenced for the offences charged. 7. Learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have opposed the prayer and they have relied upon the contradictions as pointed out in the Judgment and submitted that the respondent has been rightly acquitted of the charge in view of the fact that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the charge. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 that soon after lodging of the case, the statement of the appellant was also recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., which has not proved by the prosecution as the said statement demolishes the case of the appellant. That statement has been proved by the defence. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that no case is made out for any interference in the impugned Judgment of acquittal. 8. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the contradictions pointed out in the impugned Judgment, we are of the considered view that the Court below has rightly recorded the Judgment of acquittal of the respondent No.2 and it needs no interference by this Court. 9. There is no merit in this acquittal appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed in the admission stage itself.