Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 67 (JHR)

Dhananjay Nayak v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-01-09

ANANT BIJAY SINGH

body2018
JUDGMENT Anant Bijay Singh, J. – The sole appellant had faced the trial in Sessions Trial No.60/2001 before learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ghatsila Civil Court, East Singhbhum, who by judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.12.2003 had held him guilty u/s 376/511 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I for 3 years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 months. 2. It appears that this appeal was admitted for hearing on 04.03.2004 and the LCR was called for and the appellant was released on bail. 3. The case of the prosecution based upon the fardbeyan of PW-05- Sarathi Nayak is that on 16.09.2000 she had gone to take bath in a nearby the pond situated at railway line and after taking bath, while she was changing her clothes the appellant came and started asking question that who flashed the torch in the mid-night upon which the informant showed her ignorance and in the meantime, she tried to flee away, but the appellant thrashed her on the earth. She raised Hulla. In the meanwhile PW-1 Niranjan Nayak came there and rescued the informant. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan, Chakulia P.S. Case No. 33/2000 was instituted u/s 376/511/342 of the IPC. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant, during course of the argument submitted that the appellant has been implicated in this case due to land dispute between the parties, and PW-5 in her cross-examination has stated that there is a land dispute between her father and the father of the accused. 6. It is further submitted that PW-1 Niranjan Nayak is the uncle of the informant and neither the injury report, nor injury suffered by PW-5 has been proved by the prosecution. The doctor and the I.O has not been examined in this case. So, prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. 7. From perusal of the evidence of PW-1 Niranjan Nayak, it appears that he has also supported the fact that on hulla raised by PW-5 he came at the place of occurrence. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that PW-5 is Niece of PW-1 and no injury has been received by PW-5, hence, no case under section 376 of IPC is made out against the appellant. 9. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that PW-5 is Niece of PW-1 and no injury has been received by PW-5, hence, no case under section 376 of IPC is made out against the appellant. 9. On the other hand, learned APP has submitted that PW-5 has supported the case and appellant had came to the place of occurrence and to commit rape upon PW-1. 10. After hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties, it appears that neither the injury report of PW-5 has been proved nor the doctor and the I.O. have been examined in this case by the prosecution. 11. In view of the findings recorded by the court below and also considering the evidence of the PW-5 that there was an enmity between the father of the appellant and father of PW-5, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.12.2003 passed by Sri Ajit Kumar Thakur Addl. Sessions Judge, Ghatsila Civil Court, East Singhbhum is hereby set aside. The appellant, who is on bail, is hereby discharged from the liability of his bail bonds.