2026:JHHC:19099

Page 1 of 15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 381 of 2009

[Against the Judgment of conviction dated 21.04.2009 and Order of

sentence dated 22.04.2009, passed by learned 2

nd

Additional

Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Case No. 18 of 2008 / 152 of

2008].

Ramjan Ansari, S/o Md. Zamiruddin Ansari, R/o Village –

Baghmara, P.S. – Deodanr, District - Godda.

… … Appellant

Versus

The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent

…..

For the Appellant : Mrs. Rajni Singh, Advocate.

Mr. P.K. Verma, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, A.P.P.

…..

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

JUDGMENT

C.A.V. on 17.06.2026 Pronounced on 30.06.2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of

conviction dated 21.04.2009 and order of sentence

dated 22.04.2009 passed by learned 2

nd Additional

Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Case No. 18 of

2008 / 152 of 2008, whereby and whereunder the

appellant has been held guilty for the offence under

Section 376 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo

R.I. of seven years along with fine of Rs. 3,000/- with

default stipulation.

FACTUAL MATRIX

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

12.08.2007 at about 7:00 P.M. the prosecutrix, aged

2026:JHHC:19099

Page 2 of 15

about 12 years was going to discharge nature’s call

towards north side of her Village. Suddenly, near the

Sharifa (Custard Apple) tree, the present appellant

met her and allured to give Rs. 10/- and come with

him, but she declined then present appellant caught

hold of her hand and pulling her brought under

Sharifa tree, untied under pant and lying down on

earth, gaged her mouth by her pant and committed

rape on her. The prosecutrix became unconscious,

then accused went away when her mother was

shouting to c all her, but after regaining

consciousness, she returned to home and narrated

about the above occurrence to her mother. It is

alleged that the informant’s mother was going to

police station, but the Villagers forbade her in the

name of convening a Panchayati. Since no Panchayati

was convened till two days, then she lodged this case

at the police station, where fardbeyan was recorded by

S.I. Ajay Kumar Thakur of Deodanr Police Station,

District – Godda on 14.08.2007 at 16:00 hours.

Accordingly, F.I.R. was registered as Deodanr

(Poraiyahat) P.S. Case No. 134 of 2007 dated

15.08.2007 for the offence under Section 376 of the

I.P.C. against the above named sole accused.

4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was

submitted for the aforesaid offence against accused.

2026:JHHC:19099

Page 3 of 15

After taking cognizance, the case was committed to

the court of Sessions, where Sessions Case No. 18 of

2008 / 152 of 2008 was registered. The defence has

denied the charges leveled against him and claimed to

be tried.

5. In course of trial, altogether 07 witnesses were

examined by the prosecution apart from documentary

evidences.

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

occurrence and of false implication. However, one

defence witness namely, Jamiruddin Ansari @ Budhu

Ansari has been examined by defence , who happens

to be father of the accused. According to his evidence,

there is long drawn dispute with the father of the

prosecutrix regarding drainage of water from the roof

of their house, which are adjacent to each other. He

was threatened several times by the father of the

prosecutrix. He has further deposed that several times

Panchayati was convened in respect to drainage of

water with the father of prosecutrix. Hence, his son

has been falsely implicated in this case.

In his cross-examination, he admits that the

dispute of drainage with the father of the prosecutrix,

he has lodged no case or any Sanha before the

competent authority and has denied the suggestion of

prosecution that he has given false evidence.

2026:JHHC:19099

Page 4 of 15

7. The trial court, after appreciating the evidence

available on record, has held the appellant guilty for

the charge leveled against him and sentenced as

stated above.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant assailing the

impugned judgment of conviction of the appellant has

vehemently argued that except the prosecutrix, there

is no eye-witness of the occurrence. The maternal

grandmother and mother of the victim were declared

hostile and the father of the victim is a hearsay

witness. There is vital contradictions in the fardbeyan

of the victim and in her statement recorded under

Section 164 Cr.P.C. Medical report (Exhibit-4) also not

corroborated that rape was committed and there was

no external injury on the private part, no redness, no

tenderness, no bleeding, hymen - no tear at margin of

vagina.

9. It is further submitted that the appellant has been

falsely implicated in this case due to previous enmity

between father of the victim and the appellants’ family

with respect to drainage of water. Therefore,

conviction and sentence of the appellant is liable to be

set aside and this appeal may be allowed.

10. In alternative, it is argued that the occurrence is of

the year 2007 and near about two decades have

elapsed. Out of sentence of R.I. of seven years, the

2026:JHHC:19099

Page 5 of 15

appellant has remained in custody for about 1½

years. Therefore, sending the appellant for serving the

remaining period of sentence would serve no useful

purpose, as such, considering the attending

circumstances of the case, the period of imprisonment

already undergone by the appellant during trial and

post-conviction would meet the ends of justice in this

case. Therefore, the sentence of R.I. of seven years

awarded by learned Trial Court may be reduced to the

imprisonment already undergone by him.

11. Per contra, learned APP appearing for the State has

vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised

on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the

prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable

doubt. Learned trial court has very meticulously

examined the evidence adduced by the prosecution as

well as defence. It appears that although the medical

examination of the victim was conducted after one

week, therefore, no sign of rape has been found, that

is immaterial. There is no illegality or infirmity in the

impugned judgment of conviction and order of

sentence of the appellant and there is no merit in this

appeal, which is fit to be dismissed.

12. I have gone through the record the case along with

impugned judgment in the light of contentions raised

on behalf of both side.

2026:JHHC:19099

Page 6 of 15

13. The only point for consideration in this appeal is, as

to whether the impugned judgment of conviction and

sentence suffers from any serious error of law calling

for any interference in this appeal or not?

14. Before adjudicating the above point, it is pertinent to

apprise with the testimony of the witnesses examined

during trial.

15. P.W.-1 is a rickshaw puller by profession and

happens to be father of the victim girl. He has

disclosed the age of his victim daughter as 10 years.

He has also deposed that while he was present at

Dumka, then he got information that Ramjan Ansari

has committed rape with his daughter on allurement

of giving Rs. 10/- to her. Admittedly, this witness is

not an eye-witness of the occurrence, rather hearsay

witness.

In his cross-examination by defence, he admits

that there is no dispute of any kind with the accused

or his father and never any Panchayati was convened

for resolving any dispute. He came to know about the

above occurrence from his wife. He has also denied

any scuffle with the father of accused regarding

drainage of water from their houses.

16. P.W.-2 is the maternal grandmother of the victim

girl. She came to know about the occurrence and

heard that a case has been lodged, but she can’t tell

2026:JHHC:19099

Page 7 of 15

what nature of case has been lodged against the

accused, as such she has been declared hostile by

prosecution.

17. P.W.-3 is the mother of the victim girl. She has

also deposed that about 08 months ago, her daughter

was raped and she returned and disclosed about the

occurrence and also stated that she could not identify

any miscreant, but she specifically disclosed that rape

was committed with her. This witness has also been

declared hostile by the prosecution.

18. P.W.-4 is the prosecutrix. In her evidence, she has

categorically states that she went to police station

along with her maternal grandmother (P.W.-2), where

her fardbeyan was written by police and she signed

over it, which was marked Exhibit-1. Her statement

under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was also recorded by

Magistrate and she proved her signature as Exhibit-2.

She has also claimed to identify the accused Ramjan

Ansari present behind the dock. This witness has

further stated that on the date of occurrence, it was

going to start night and she had gone to bari for

discharging nature’s call, where Ramjan Ansari

committed rape with her forcibly. She has further

described that her pant was untied. Thereafter, rape

was committed with her. The accused has also given

allurement of Rs. 10/- to her. The accused has also

2026:JHHC:19099

Page 8 of 15

threatened her not to disclose above incident to

anyone, but she disclosed the above story to her

mother. She has also undergone medical examination

and she has also disclosed about commission of rape

with her while recording of her statement under

Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate. She also states

that the accused has not given Rs. 10/- to her nor she

received the same. She has identified the accused

present behind the dock.

In her cross-examination, she admits that the

accused Ramjan Ansari is her neighbour and the roof

of their houses is at a distance of 10 ft. She also

admits that the house of Ramjan Ansari is situated

just adjacent to her house by purchasing some land.

She also admits about drainage of water at the time of

rainy season from their roof. She also admits dispute

of drainage prior to the occurrence, but no case was

lodged by any party. She also admits that place of

occurrence is situated at a distance of 10-15 ft. from

her house.

In Court question also, she has clearly deposed

that she has identified the accused Ramjan Ansari,

who committed rape with her. Since her mouth was

gaged by her pant, hence, she could not raise any

alarm. She was dragged towards Sharifa tree by the

accused for commission of rape. She has given vivid

2026:JHHC:19099

Page 9 of 15

description about of manner of commission of rape

with her. Thereafter, she became unconscious and on

attaining consciousness, she, at first, went to the

house of her maternal grandmother and disclosed

about the incident. She went to police station along

with her maternal grandmother and mother for

lodging the case.

She has denied the suggestion of defence that due

to dispute about drainage of rain water with her

father, she has lodged this false case.

19. P.W.-5 Sanjeev Jha is the Judicial Magistrate, 1

st

Class, Godda, who has proved the statement of the

victim recorded under Section 164 CrPC as Exhibit-3.

20. P.W.-6 Dr. Vandebi Jha has conducted the medical

examination of the victim while posted at Sadar

Hospital, Godda on 18.08.2007 and found following:-

Height 130 cm, Weight – 26 Kg.

Teeth 14/14 total 28.

Age about 13 years for confirmation of age radiological

and dental opinion needed. Breast not grown auxiliary

hairs absent.

External examination – Walking normally, no injury

anywhere over body.

Internal examination

Pubic hair not grown. No injury at around private

part. No redness no tenderness no bleeding hymen no

2026:JHHC:19099

Page 10 of 15

tear at margin extending up to vagina present opening

admit little finger dee p only. Microscopical

examination of vaginal swab spermatozoa not found

appthelious found not seen.

Opinion.

The age of victim is about 13 years, no definite

opinion can be given regarding sexual contact.

This witness has identified the injury report,

which is in his handwriting and bears his signature,

marked as Exhibit-4.

21. P.W.-7 ASI Ajay Kumar Thakur is the Investigating

Officer of this case. He has proved the fardbeyan of

the prosecutrix as Exhibit-1 and overall contents of

fardbeyan as Exhibit-1/1, endorsement on the

fardbeyan as Exhibit-1/2 and endorsement on the

fardbeyan by the Officer-in-Charge of Poraiyahat

Police Station as Exhibit-1/3, Formal F.I.R. as

Exhibit-5. He recorded re-statement of the victim girl.

He has visited the place of occurrence and inspected

the same. The place of occurrence of the case is

situated in Village-Baghmara, Pradhan Tola towards

50 yards southern side from the house of victim,

where Sharifa and Taal tree and bushes were found,

where victim girl was raped by the accused. He has

also recorded the statement of witnesses Demanti

Devi and Kalawati Devi.

2026:JHHC:19099

Page 11 of 15

His attention has been drawn towards the

statement recorded under Section 16 1 Cr.P.C. of

P.W.-2 and P.W.-3, who have disclosed before him

that the victim narrated to them about the occurrence

just after she returned from the place of occurrence

after commission of rape with her. He has also

disclosed that due to convening of Panchayati, there

was delay in lodging the F.I.R. He also sent the victim

for medical examination and obtained her medical

examination report and finding sufficient evidence,

submitted charge sheet against the accused for the

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

In his cross-examination, he admits that no

independent villagers were desirous to give statement

before him nor anyone appear. Therefore, he has not

interrogated about the occurrence with them. He also

admits that for the first time, the victim declined for

undergoing the medical examination, but again she

consented and her medical examination was

conducted on 18.08.2007.

He has denied the suggestion of defence that his

investigation is perfunctory and defective and without

sufficient evidence, he has submitted charge sheet

against the accused.

22. From discussion of evidence of above witnesses, it

appears that the prosecutrix has fully supported her

2026:JHHC:19099

Page 12 of 15

case. Her solitary evidence is sufficient to convict the

appellant. It further appears that although her

medical examination was conducted after one week,

therefore, no sign of rape has been found. But from

the evidence of the victim, it is crystal clear that she

has fully corroborated the version of the prosecution

case as well as her statement recorded under Section

164 Cr.P.C.

23. It is trite that the testimony of prosecutrix appears to

be wholly reliable and unblemished. The conviction

can be made on uncorroborated testimony of the

prosecutrix. In the case of Krishan Kumar Malik vs.

State of Haryana, reported in (2011) 7 SCC 130,

the Hon'ble Apex Court held that to hold an accused

guilty for commission of an offence of rape, the

solitary evidence of prosecutrix is sufficient, provided

the same inspires confidence and appears to be

absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of

sterling quality.

24. In the instance case, after evaluating the deposition of

victim, I am of the opinion that victim is absolutely

trustworthy and unblemished.

25. In view of the above discussion and reasons, I do not

find any legal substance in the point of arguments

raised on behalf of the appellant and no merits in this

appeal to take a different view and interfere with the

2026:JHHC:19099

Page 13 of 15

impugned judgment. As such, conviction of the

appellant passed by the learned Trial Court is hereby

upheld and confirmed.

26. So far as the submission advanced by the learned

counsel for the appellant with respect to reduction of

sentence on the ground of long pendency of case and

period of imprisonment undergone by the appellant is

concerned, this Court has to see as to whether the

sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced or

not?

27. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anversinh @

Kiransinh Fatesinh Zala versus State of Gujarat

reported in (2021) 3 SCC 12, dealing with a situation

similar to the facts and circumstances of the present

case, has expressed its opinion that the need of

proportionality during sentencing must be re -

emphasized as earlier held by this Court in State of

M.P. versus Surendra Singh reported in (2015) 1

SCC 222 as under:-

“13. We again reiterate in this case that

undue sympathy to impose inadequate

sentence would do more harm to the justice

system to undermine the public confidence

in the efficacy of law. It is the duty of every

court to award proper sentence having

regard to the nature of the offence and the

2026:JHHC:19099

Page 14 of 15

manner in which it was executed or

committed. The sentencing courts are

expected to consider all relevant facts and

circumstances bearing on the question of

sentence and proceed to impose a sentence

commensurate with the gravity of the

offence. The court must not only keep in

view the rights of the victim of the crime,

but also the society at large while

considering the imposition of appropriate

punishment. Meagre sentence imposed

solely on account of lapse of time without

considering the degree of the offence will be

counterproductive in the long run and

against the interest of the society.”

28. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case

in the light of Apex Court judgment, the heinous

nature of offence committed by the appellant and in

the interest of society at large, I find that there cannot

be any mechanical reduction of sentence . Mere

undergoing custody for some time or long pendency of

the case does not create the right of the accused to

release him for the period already undergone.

29. In view of the aforesaid, this appeal is dismissed.

30. The appellant is on bail. His bail bond is her eby

cancelled.

2026:JHHC:19099

Page 15 of 15

31. The appellant is directed to surrender before the

concerned Trial Court within two months from the

date of this judgment and receive the remaining

sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court and

undergo the remaining period of imprisonment, failing

which, the learned Trial Court shall take all coercive

steps in securing the attendance of the appellant and

sending him under proper conviction warrant to jail

custody for undergoing the remaining period of

sentence awarded to him.

32. Pending I.A., if any, stand disposed of.

33. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court

record be sent back to the court concerned for

information and needful.

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi

Dated, the 30

th June, 2026.

Sunil /N.A.F.R.

Uploaded on 30/06/2026