Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1353 (JHR)

Manoranjan Soren v. State of Jharkhand

2017-08-03

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. K.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 08.02.2005 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 34 of 2004 by learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara, whereby and whereunder, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 30.06.2004 passed in G.R Case No. 101 of 1998 (T.R. No. 100 of 2004), convicting the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 354/34, IPC and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for eight months, has been affirmed. 3. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that none of the witnesses have supported the prosecution case. It has further been submitted that the case of the prosecution rests upon the evidence of informant, PW5, who is said to have been accompanying PW4 and PW6 when the alleged incident had taken place. It has been further submitted that PW7 and PW8 have been declared hostile and the I.O. of the case has not been examined. An alternative argument has been advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners that if this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction, the period of sentence be suitably modified in view of the long pendency of the case as also the fact that the petitioners had remained in custody for about two months out of maximum sentence of R.I. for 8 months. 4. It appears that an F.I.R was instituted by the Bimoti Hansda, PW5 is to the effect that while she was returning from Jungle along with two associates, namely, Didimuni Marandi and Swati Hansda after collecting wood, the petitioners all of a sudden had come to her and caught hold of her hand and petitioner No. 1 pulled her sari and the petitioner No. 2 had also tried to disrobe her. It has been further alleged that the informant told her associates to call her parents and accordingly they rushed to the village and thereafter the family members of the informant came to the place of occurrence. Before arrival of the family members of the informant, the petitioners wanted to satisfy their lust. However after their arrival, the accused persons fled away. Based on the aforesaid allegation G.R. Case No. 101 of 1998 was registered for the offence under Section 354/34, IPC. Before arrival of the family members of the informant, the petitioners wanted to satisfy their lust. However after their arrival, the accused persons fled away. Based on the aforesaid allegation G.R. Case No. 101 of 1998 was registered for the offence under Section 354/34, IPC. After investigation resulted in submission of charge-sheet and after cognizance was taken trial proceeded. 5. In course of trial 08 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. PW1, Mahadeo Hansda is not an eye-witness and he had come to know about the occurrence after hearing the cry of alarm. PW 2 Balku Hansda has stated that he had seen the petitioners catching hold of the hand of PW5, the informant. PW 3, Golak Hansda is the father of the informant and he has stated that at the time of incident he was outside the house and when he returned back he heard from PW5 about the occurrence and thereafter the case was instituted in the Police Station. PW4 Swati Hansda was one of the associates of the informant who has stated that she along with the informant and PW6 Didimuni Marandi were returning hack to her village after collecting wood from Jungle when both the accused persons came to them and petitioner No. 1 caught hold of the hands of the informant with a view to outrage her modesty. This witness has further stated when the informant resisted, the petitioner No. 1 pulled her sari and also caught hold of her blouse. She has also supported the fact that PW6 Didimuni Marandi rushed to her village to inform the occurrence to the family members of the informant at which family members of the informant reached the place of occurrence. PW5, Bimoti Hansda is the informant of the present case. She has stated that while she along with PW4 Swati Hansda and PW6 Didimuni Marandi were returning back home after collecting wood from the forest all of a sudden the accused persons came to her and the petitioner No. 1 caught hold of her hand and tried to disrobe her. She has further stated that petitioner No. 1 pulled her sari and thereafter when she tried to escape he caught hold of her blouse. She further stated petitioner No. 2 was exhorting the petitioner No. 1 to fulfil their lust. She has further stated that petitioner No. 1 pulled her sari and thereafter when she tried to escape he caught hold of her blouse. She further stated petitioner No. 2 was exhorting the petitioner No. 1 to fulfil their lust. This witness had state that when the incident was happening her associate PW 6, Didimuni Marandi rushed to her village to inform the occurrence to the family members of the informant at which family members of the informant reached to the place of occurrence and on their arrival the accused persons fled away. PW6, Didimuni Marandi stated that she was also accompanying the informant at the time of collecting wood. This witness had stated that when the incident was happening she rushed to her village to inform the occurrence to the family members of the informant at which family members of the informant reached to the place of occurrence and thereafter the accused persons fled away. This witness has further stated that the accused persons had never targeted them. PW7, Hemlal Tudu and PW8. Anil Murmu have been declared hostile. 6. The prosecution case rests on the evidence of PW4, PW5 and PW6. PW5, the informant has stated in very categorical terms about the attempt made by the petitioner to outrage her modesty. The incident has fully been supported by PW4 and PW6. PW1 and 2 had also about stated about the fact that they were informed by PW 6 and thereafter they reached to the place of occurrence along with PW 6 and thereafter the accused persons fled away. 7. In view of the consistent nature of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the prosecution having been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, the petitioners were rightly convicted for the offences punishable under Section 354/34, IPC by the learned trial Court. Learned appellate Court had also appreciated the materials available on record and affirmed the judgment of conviction. There being no reason to conclude otherwise, the judgment of conviction is hereby sustained. 8. However, as regards the sentence imposed upon the petitioners it appears that the petitioners have been facing rigours of the criminal case since 1998 and they have remained for two months in custody out of sentence of R.I. for 8 months. There being no reason to conclude otherwise, the judgment of conviction is hereby sustained. 8. However, as regards the sentence imposed upon the petitioners it appears that the petitioners have been facing rigours of the criminal case since 1998 and they have remained for two months in custody out of sentence of R.I. for 8 months. On consideration of the aforesaid facts, the order of sentence passed against the petitioners is modified to the period already undergone by the petitioners. 9. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in the order of sentence awarded to the petitioner. Application dismissed.