Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
KAILASH PRASAD DEO, J.
Bhavendra Das, son of Upendra Das and ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 884 of 2004
Decided On : 24-09-2018
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 366, 34 – Rape – Order of Conviction – Instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 09.03.2004 and order of sentence, passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, whereby all the four appellants named above have been convicted by the learned trial court for the offence committed and punishable under Section 366/34 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant No. 1, has been convicted also for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code. – Trial court has awarded simple imprisonment for three and half years for offence punishable under Section 366/34 of the Indian Penal Code to all the appellants and has also awarded simple imprisonment for four years for the offence committed and punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal code to the appellant – Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. – Held, Court is of the opinion that appellant no. 1, is entitled for benefit of doubt as the victim P.W.2 has admitted in her cross-examination that she has not filed any application to annul the marriage certificate, meaning thereby that the victim has knowledge about the marriage certificate, but she has never challenged the marriage certificate. – As such, the conviction of all these four appellants under Section 366/34 of the Indian Penal Code and conviction of the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code cannot sustain in the eyes of law as the victim being a major girl, went herself to fill up the form of marriage, on the basis of which, marriage certificate has been issued and in that marriage certificate, appellants no. 2 to 4 have also put their signatures and on the basis of this marriage certificate, the marriage was consummated, which does not amounts to rape and as such, the appellants are acquitted of all the charges and conviction levelled against them, by extending benefit of doubt on the basis of Exhibit- A. – Impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, in Sessions Trial in connection with P.S. Case corresponding to G. R. is hereby set aside and all the appellants are acquitted of the charge and conviction under Section 366/34 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant is also acquitted of the charge and conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code by extending benefit of doubt. – Criminal Appeal Allowed
1. The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 09.03.2004 and order of sentence, dated 16.03.2004, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Vth, Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No. 206 of 2002/ S.T.R. No. 24 of 2003, whereby all the four appellants named above have been convicted by the learned trial court for the offence committed and punishable under Section 366/34 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant No. 1, Bhavendra Das has been convicted also for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial court has awarded simple imprisonment for three and half years for offence punishable under Section 366/34 of the Indian Penal Code to all the appellants and has also awarded simple imprisonment for four years for the offence committed and punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal code to the appellant Bhavendra Das. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. The period in jail custody already undergone by the appellants in course of the trial shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
2. The prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan of Savitri Munduia (P.W.2), recorded by S.I. N.K. Singh, officer-in-charge, Jhinkpani Police Station on 24.11.2001 at the house of complainant at 10.00 Hrs., where the informant has alleged that her parents are residing at Goa for their livelihood and the informant is residing with her cousin Balema Devgam. The informant has alleged that co-villager Bhavendra Das @ Babbin Das used to come to her house and threatened her for marriage. The informant under fear went to Chaibasa court along with Bhavendra Das, where she had signed on some papers and thereafter returned. On 20.10.2001, again the informant was enticed, threatened and was taken to Chaibasa Court along with her aunt Shanti Mundaiyan, Ramchandra Das and Sukhdeo Das. The informant has put her signature on some papers again, on which all these three persons have also put their signatures and thereafter Bhavendra Das disclosed that their marriage has been solemnized and informant is now his wife. Thereafter, informant was brought to his village and in the night, informant was raped and thereafter informant was forcibly kept inside the room for a month. The informant has further stated that because of the fear, she could not inform about the occurrence to anyone. During the period when the informant was under the clutches of Bhavendra Das (appellant), she was sexually ravished several times but somehow, informant fled away on 21.11.2001 and came to the house of her parents and disclosed the entire occurrence to them. In the meantime, police came and her statement was recorded by the police, as her marriage was not solemnized with her consent.
3. On the basis of the fardbeyan, the police has registered Jhinkpani P.S. Case No. 51 of 2001, dated 24.11.2001, under Sections 363 A/376/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants.
4. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no. 3 of 2002 dated 31.01.2002, under Sections 366 A and 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code against all the four named accused persons.
5. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took the cognizance of the offence vide order dated 12.02.2002 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 09.10.2002.
6. The charge has been framed against all the accused/appellants under Section 366 A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and separately against Bhavendra Das @ Babbin Das, appellant no. 1, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 21.03.2003, to which the appellants have pleaded their innocence and thus, they were put under trial. There appears to be a typographical error in the form of charge, from the order sheet of the case.
7. The prosecution, to prove its case, has examined altogether four witnesses and also exhibited documentary evidence. Dr. Deep Shikha Verma, Medic
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
