##PAGE1##

2026:JHHC:22497

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1091 of 2008

------

Chunu Mardi, Son of Jitu Mardi, R/o-Village-Jhalak, P.S. – Raj Nagar, Dist.-Seraikella - Kharsawan … .... …. Appellant

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Victim .... .... .... Respondents ------

For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Adv.

Mr. Abhijit Kumar, Adv.

For the Resp. State : Mrs. Mahua Palit, A.P.P. For the Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Krishanu Ray, Adv.

Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

JUDGMENT

C.A.V. on 30.06.2026 Pronounced on 29.07.2026 1. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and

learned A.P.P. assisted by learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of

conviction dated 06.08.2008 and order of sentence dated 12.08.2008 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Seraikella in S.T. No. 143 of 2004, whereby and whereunder, the sole appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for

8 (eight) years.

Factual Matrix:-

3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 27.01.2004,

the prosecutrix (P.W.-1) along with two other ladies namely Suhagi Hansda (P.W.-2) and Digi Murmu (P.W.-3) had gone to see a fare at Pandupani and while returning they reached near Sokaro Dungri, at about 8:30 PM, in the meantime, the present

2026:JHHC:22497

appellant met with the prosecutrix and allured her for marriage and also assured to solemnize marriage with her and brought to some distance at lonely place and committed rape. She has further alleged that accused is sexually exploiting her since five

years on pretext of marriage.

On the basis of written report of the prosecutrix dated

30.01.2004, Rajnagar P.S. Case No. 03 of 2004 was registered for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused for

the offence under Section 493 and 376 of the I.P.C.

The case was committed to the Court of sessions, where

S.T. No. 143/2004 was registered. Charge for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC has been framed and explained to the accused in Hindi. The accused denied from charge leveled against him for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and claimed

to be tried.

4. In the course of trial, altogether 7 witnesses were examined by

the prosecution.

5. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following

documentary evidence have been adduced by the prosecution

Ext.-1 Signature of victim on written report

Ext.-2 The medical examination report of the

victim.

Cr. App. (S.J.) No. 1091 of 2008

2

2026:JHHC:22497

6. On the other hand, the case of the defence is denial from

occurrence and false implication and plea of innocence. However, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the

defence.

7. The learned trial Court after scrutinizing the evidence available

on record, arrived at conclusion that the prosecutrix has categorically proved the love affair with the accused and on pretext of solemnizing marriage with her, the accused has sexually exploited her since five years. It was also observed that the intention of the accused was from the very inception to fulfill his sexual lust without solemnizing the marriage with the prosecutrix. Therefore, he has obtained the consent of the victim by playing fraud with her and under misconception of fact and accordingly, the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced

the appellant as stated above.

Submissions on behalf of appellant: -

8. Learned counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned

judgment has submitted that the impugned judgment is based upon non-consideration of the evidence of prosecutrix properly. The written report of the prosecutrix itself discloses that the occurrence took place on 27.01.2004 but she has lodged a written report on 30.01.2004 without offering any reasonable explanation for such inordinate delay of 3 days in instituting