SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Jhk) 440

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, SANJAY PRASAD, JJ.
Dharmeshwar Oraon S/o Late Sohrai Oraon - Appellant 
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent 
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1169 of 2018
Decided on : 06-05-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. A. S. Dayal, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P.

The conviction for rape can be upheld based solely on the victim's credible testimony, without the need for corroboration, unless significant doubts arise.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376 and 346 - Conviction for rape and wrongful confinement - Appellant convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine for rape, concurrent sentences for wrongful confinement - Evidence of victim and corroborating witnesses established the commission of the crime - Medical evidence indicated recent sexual activity - Conviction upheld but sentence modified to account for time served. (Paras 2, 17, 59, 60)

(B) Evidence - Testimony of victim - Conviction can be based on sole testimony of the prosecutrix if credible - No requirement for corroboration unless the testimony suffers from basic infirmities. (Paras 47, 48)

Facts of the case:
The victim, aged 14, was allegedly raped by the appellant while grazing cattle. After being confined overnight, she reported the incident to her father the next day. The prosecution presented eight witnesses, including the victim and medical personnel. (Paras 3, 5, 8)

Findings of Court:
The court found the victim's testimony credible and supported by medical evidence, leading to the conviction of the appellant. The court noted inconsistencies but deemed them not fatal to the prosecution's case. (Paras 57, 59)

Issues: The main issues included the credibility of the victim's testimony and the sufficiency of evidence to support the conviction. (Paras 17, 59)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the sole testimony of the victim can suffice for conviction if it inspires confidence, and corroboration is not mandatory unless significant doubts arise. (Paras 47, 48)

Result: The appeal is dismissed with a modification of the sentence to account for time served.

JUDGMENT :

R. Mukhopadhyay, J.

Heard Mr. A.S. Dayal, learned counsel for the appellant and Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.09.2018 (sentence passed on 06.09.2018) passed by Sri Lolark Dubey, learned Additional Sessions Judge I cum Special Judge, Gumla in connection with S. T. No. 260 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 346 I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and in case of default in payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and rigorous imprisonment for 1 year for the offence under Section 346 I.P.C. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The prosecution case is based on the written report of the victim – ‘X’ in which it has been stated that on 21.04.2013 she had gone to graze cattle at 3:00 P.M. and her two younger brothers were also there. At about 5:00 P.M., Dharmeshwar Oraon (appellant) had come and started making small talks with the informant. When the informant went up a hillock in search of a cattle, Dharmeshwar Oraon who was hiding behind a bush had come out and gagged the mouth of the informant, thrown her on the ground, disrobed her and committed rape upon her. At around 1:00 A.M. when the father of the informant and others had come searching for her, the informant was forcibly taken to the house of Lalit, a friend of the accused where she was kept the entire night. Dharmeshwar Oraon had also issued threat of committing the murder of the informant, if she discloses the incident to anyone. It has been stated that today i.e., on 22.04.2013, the informant managed to flee away from the custody of the accused and went to the house of her aunt at village Pogra and disclosed the entire incident to her. On being informed, the father of the informant had come and had taken her to the police station where the written report was submitted.

Based on the aforesaid allegations, Raidih P. S. Case No. 23 of 2013 was instituted under Sections 376 and 346 I.P.C. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the court of Sessions where it was registered as S. T. No. 260 of 2013. Charges were framed against the accused under Sections 376 and 346 I.P.C. which were read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses in support of its case.

5. P.W. 1 – Ranjit Oraon has stated that the incident is of 21.04.2013. He had come to the market and returned at 8:00 P.M. When he came to know that the victim is not at her house he and Bal Mohan Oraon started searching for her, but she could not be traced out, but on the next day a phone call came from Mohan Oraon at which he along with Bal Mohan Oraon went to Pogra village where they met the victim where she disclosed that Dharmeshwar Oraon had committed rape upon her. The victim had given a written report to police station in which he has signed and which has been proved by him and marked as Exhibit 1.

The wearing apparels of the victim were seized and a seizure list was prepared in which he has signed and he has proved his signature on the seizure list which has been marked as Exhibit 2.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that the two younger brothers of the victim who were with her when she had gone to graze cattle also feigned ignorance about her whereabouts.

6. P.W. 2 – Gondo Devi is the grand-mother of the victim. The victim had gone to graze cattle along with her brothers – Ajit and Sachin. In the evening both her brothers returned back, but she did not return back. She has stated that Dharmeshwar Oraon had committed rape upon her. The victim was traced out by Bal Mohan and brought home and the victim

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top