Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 319 (JHR)

Dharmu Oraon S/o Rama Oraon v. State of Jharkhand

2025-02-07

SANJAY PRASAD

body2025
JUDGMENT : 1. This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the juvenile petitioners challenging the judgment dated 22.07.2024, passed by Shri Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Addl. Sessions Judge-1-cum-Special Judge, Children Court, Civil Courts, Lohardaga in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2024, by which prayer for bail of the petitioners has been rejected by affirming the order dated 04.06.2024, passed by the In-Charge Principal Magistrate &Members of Juvenile Justice Board, Lohardaga (wrongly stated as Presiding Officer, Juvenile Justice Board, Lohardaga in this Revision Application), arising out of Bhandra P.S. Case No. 24 of 2024 in connection with G.R. No. 264 of 2024 instituted for the offence under Section 376 D I.P.C. and Section 6 of POCSO Act, by which the prayer for bail of the petitioners has been rejected. 2. The father of the victim girl had lodged the F.I.R. giving rise to Bhandra P.S. Case No.24 of 2024 stating therein that on 08.05.2024 his two daughters, i.e. the Victim girl, aged about 17 years (name not disclosed in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nipun Saxena and another v. Union of India and others , (2019) 2 SCC 703 and Notification No. 23/2023/R&S/JHC dated 20.12.2023 of the Jharkhand High Court) and her sister, aged about 15 years (name not disclosed in view of the above stated judgment and the notification) had gone to attend a party of ring ceremony and after ring ceremony one of his daughters, aged about 15 years returned to home, but his elder daughter (i.e. the victim), aged about 17 years did not return. Thereafter, the Informant started searching for her and on 11.05.2024 she was recovered from the house of one of her friends in a frightened condition. Thereafter, his daughter, i.e. the victim girl disclosed that while she was returning on 08.05.2024 from the party of ring ceremony, then she was subjected to gang rape one by one by all the juvenile Petitioner No. 1 to Petitioner No.4, namely Dharmu Oraon, Santosh Oraon, Budheshwar Oraon and Sanjay Oraon respectively. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court and the Juvenile Justice Board are illegal arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court and the Juvenile Justice Board are illegal arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the allegation of rape by the juvenile petitioners upon the Victim Girl is false and concocted. It is further submitted that the Informant has got the case compromised with the petitioners and the Victim Girl has not stated against them during her evidence. It is submitted that the juvenile petitioners are in jail from 12.05.2024 and hence, the juvenile petitioners may be enlarged on bail. 4. None appears on behalf of the State and also on behalf of the Informant on repeated call. 5. Perused the record of this Criminal Revision Application and Social Investigation Report of the petitioner. 6. It appears from the F.I.R. that all the juvenile petitioners have committed Gang rape upon the victim girl near the Mango Orchard in the night of 08.05.2024, while she was returning after attending the party of ring ceremony. 7. It also appears that all the juvenile petitioners are named in the F.I.R. 8. Although, there is some delay in lodging the F.I.R. by the Informant as the Informant was searching his daughter, i.e. the Victim Girl, who was recovered in a frightened condition in the house of her friend though her name finds place in the deposition of P.W.1, who is the father of the Victim Girl and the Informant of this case, but it was natural as the parents shall initially try to search their daughter. 9. It further reveals from the Seizure List dated 11.05.2024, enclosed with the F.I.R. that the blood stained Top of Pink colour of the Victim Girl, enclosed as Annexure ‘A’ and one Black Colour Jeans having Semen stain, enclosed as Annexure ‘B’ were handed over to the Police, i.e. the S.I. Bhandra P.S. at the time of lodging of the F.I.R. 10. Although the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Ratnaker Bhengra, as then His Lordship was) of this Court had called for the Social Investigation Report of the petitioners but had not called for the Medical Report and Statement of the Victim Girl recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., however, this Court finds that the learned counsel for the petitioners has enclosed the deposition of the Informant, i.e. the father of the Victim Girl and the Victim Girl, who were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2, by filing supplementary Affidavit dated 21.01.2025 on behalf of the petitioners. 11. From perusal of evidence of P.W.1, it would appear that though he has been declared hostile by the prosecution, but he has proved his signature on the production-cum-Seizure list marked as Ext. P-2 and he has also proved his signature on the F.I.R. marked as P-1. He also stated that he had produced the clothes of the Victim Girl. He has further proved the signature on the production-cum-Seizure List on which the blood of his daughter was taken. 12. So far as evidence of P.W. 2, i.e. the Victim Girl, is concerned, though she was also declared hostile by the prosecution, however, she has admitted to have given statement before the learned Judicial Magistrate and has identified her signature on her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which is marked as Ext.P-4. She has further proved her signature on the production-cum-Seizure List by which her blood was taken for investigation, which was marked as Ext. P-5. 13. From perusal of the social investigation report of the petitioners, it would appear that all the petitioners were in bad company and there is lack of guidance from their guardians. 14. Even Shri Anurag Meraz Toppo, the Probation Officer, Observation Home, Gumla has observed in his report that the juvenile petitioners and their guardians are very influential in the village and the father of the Victim Girl has been found in a frightened condition. 15. It appears that the Social Investigation Report of the petitioners was sent to this Court on28.09.2024. 16. It appears that thereafter the Informant and the Victim Girl was examined on 19.12.2024 respectively before the learned Court below, but no security and police protection were provided to the Victim Girl and her father, i.e. the Informant of this case and as such, they appear to have become hostile. 17. 16. It appears that thereafter the Informant and the Victim Girl was examined on 19.12.2024 respectively before the learned Court below, but no security and police protection were provided to the Victim Girl and her father, i.e. the Informant of this case and as such, they appear to have become hostile. 17. This Court is constrained to notice that due to the negligent approach of the prosecution and the local administration, the Informant as well as the Victim Girl have become hostile, which suggest the circumstances that they have not supported the prosecution case under the fear and coercion in absence of any security provided to them by the local administration. 18. Further, this Court is surprised to see that even in a case of gang rape and POCSO, a joint compromise petition has been filed. Although the victim girl has been declared hostile, but this Court is not inclined to take into consideration the compromise between the victim girl and the petitioners at this stage of the trial, as it appears that in this case of heinous gang rape the victim girl is compelled to become hostile. 19. It appears that the clothes, i.e. the Pink colour Top and Black jeans pant, which were sent to the F.S.L., are yet to be produced by the prosecution before the learned Court below. 20. Under the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the juvenile petitioners on bail even the P.W.1 and P.W.2 have been declared hostile. 21. As the trial is going on, this Court is not inclined to release the petitioners on bail and it will be desirable that the learned Court below should conduct the trial properly and the learned Court will be at liberty to examine the entire prosecution witnesses and the other documents may be brought on record. 22. Thus, the prayer for bail of the juvenile petitioners is accordingly rejected. 23. Thus, the judgment dated 22.07.2024, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-1-cum-Special Judge, Children Court, Civil Courts, Lohardaga in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2024 and the order dated 04.06.2024, passed by the In-Charge Principal Magistrate & Members of Juvenile Justice Board, Lohardaga are upheld. 24. Consequently, this Cr. Rev. No. 947 of 2024 is dismissed. 25. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Court below by Fax.