2026:JHHC:30962-DB

Page 1 of 23

Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.1283 &1337 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1283 of 2018

[Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated

23.08.2018 and 29.08.2018 respectively passed in S.T. No.211 of 2014 by

learned Additional Sessions Judge-X-cum-FTC, Jamshedpur, East

Singhbhum]

---------

Hemento Singh @ Hemant Singh @ Hato Singh, son of Rajendra Singh,

aged about 36 years, resident of village-Jerka P.O. & P.S.-Patamda, District-

East Singhbhum …… Appellant

Versus

The State of Jharkhand …. Respondent

With

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1337 of 2018

----------

1. Ramnath Singh @ Munda Singh, aged about 30 years, son of Kamal

Singh.

2. Vibhishan Singh @ Pnchu Singh, aged about 26 years, son of Kalipado

Singh

3. Fagu Hansda @ Sufal Hansda, aged about 26 years, son of Supol Hansda

All are residents of village Jerka, P.O. & P.S. Patmada, District-East

Singhbhum …… Appellants

Versus

The State of Jharkhand …. Respondent

----------

For the Appellant : Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, Advocate

: Mr. Yogendra Prasad, Advocate

[In Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1283/2018]

For the Resp.-State : Mr. Nawin Kumar Singh, A.P.P.

[In Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1283/2018]

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Dilip Kumar Karmakar, Advocate

: Ms. Sweta Gupta, Advocate

: Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, Advocate

[In Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1337/2018]

For the Resp.-State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl.P.P.

[In Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1337/2018]

---------

PRESENT

CORAM: SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

SRI PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

JUDGMENT

2026:JHHC:30962-DB

Page 2 of 23

Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.1283 &1337 of 2018

-----------

CAV On 08/10/2026 Pronounced On 15/10/2026

Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. We have heard the argument of learned counsel for the appellants and

learned counsel for the State in both cases.

2. All the above appeals are arising out of common judgment, hence are

heard together and are being disposed of by common judgment.

3. Instant appeals are preferred by the above named appellants for setting

aside their conviction and sentence dated 23.08.2018 and 29.08.2018

respectively passed in S.T. No.211 of 2014 by learned Additional

Sessions Judge-X-cum-FTC, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum, whereby

and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty and sentenced for

the offence under section 376(D) of IPC corresponding to Section 70 of

the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and directed to undergo R.I. for 20

years along with fine of Rs.40,000/-(Rs. Forty Thousand) each with

default stipulation.

Factual Matrix:-

4. Factual matrix giving rise to these appeals in a narrow campus is that on

05.11.2013, the prosecutrix (P.W.4) was going to her parental home

from her matrimonial home and reached near APO Tola-Jerka-Amda

Pahari in Lapit Chhencha Forest at about 3:00 pm. In the meantime, all

the above named appellants resident of village Jerka lifted her from the

way and brought her to nearby drain in the forest and committed rape

2026:JHHC:30962-DB

Page 3 of 23

Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.1283 &1337 of 2018

upon her one by one. Upon hearing the scream of the prosecutrix,

nearby persons, who were cutting firewood in the forest, arrived there

but all the accused persons managed to flee away from the place of

occurrence. It is further alleged that in connection with above incident,

the village Panchyati was convened but the accused persons were

absconding. Therefore, the delay was caused in lodging the First

Information Report (Ext.3) at police station.

5. On the basis of written report (Ext.2) of the prosecutrix dated

08.11.2013, FIR being Patamda P.S. Case No.75 of 2013 was registered

against the accused persons for the offence under section 376(D) of IPC.

6. The charge of investigation was handed over to S.I. Makru Ram

Ashur(P.W.9), who recorded the restatement of the prosecutrix on the

same day and inspected the place of occurrence, which is situated at a

distance of 15 kms from the police station.

7. The Investigating Officer(P.W.9) interrogated with other witnesses and

also got recorded the statement of the victim/prosecutrix under section

164 of Cr.P.C (Ext.5). He arrested the accused persons and prepared

their arrest memos (Ext.4 to 4/3) and also obtained the medical report of

the victim. After finding sufficient evidence against the appellants for

the commission of gang rape with the prosecutrix, he submitted charge-

sheet against them.

2026:JHHC:30962-DB

Page 4 of 23

Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.1283 &1337 of 2018

8. After taking cognizance by learned Judicial Magistrate, the case was

committed to the court of Sessions, where S.T. No.211 of 2014 was

registered.

9. The accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.

Accordingly, trial commenced.

10. In course of trial, altogether 9 witnesses were examined by the

prosecution, namely:-

P.W.1-Prakash Hembaram

P.W.2-Haradhan Soren

P.W.3-Arod Soren

P.W.4- Victim-cum-Informant

P.W.5-Narendra Nath Soren

P.W.6-Sutik Soren

P.W.7-Lagu Hansda

P.W.8-Dr. Puja Priya

P.W.9-S.I. Mukru Ram Ashur (I.O.)

11. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following documentary

evidences have been adduced by the prosecution:-

Ext.1-Medical Examination Report of prosecutrix;

Ext.2-Endorsement of I.O. on written report for registration

of FIR;

Ext.3-Formal FIR;

Ext.4 to 4/2-Four arrest memos of all the accused persons;

2026:JHHC:30962-DB

Page 5 of 23

Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.1283 &1337 of 2018

Ext.5-Statement of victim recorded under section 164 of

Cr.P.C.

12. On the other hand, the case of defence is denial from the occurrence and

plea of innocence. However, no oral or documentary evidence has been

adduced by the defence.

13. Learned trial court after evaluating the evidence available on record and

hearing the arguments of the respective parties recorded definite

findings that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge leveled

against all the accused persons, who have committed rape with the

prosecutrix constituting a group, acting in furtherance of common

intention of all accused persons on the relevant date and time of

occurrence. Accordingly, held them guilty for commission of offence

under section 376(D) of IPC and sentenced them as stated above, which

has been assailed in above appeals.

Submission on behalf of appellants:-

14. Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellant in Cr.

Appeal (DB) No.1283 of 2018 has challenged the conviction and

sentence of the present appellant on following grounds:-

(i) There is no iota of evidence showing the involvement and

participation of the present appellant in the alleged

occurrence.

2026:JHHC:30962-DB

Page 6 of 23

Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.1283 &1337 of 2018

(ii) There are material contradictions in the evidence of the

prosecutrix and other independent witnesses examined by the

prosecution.

(iii) It is a case of commission of gang rape but surprisingly the

factum of rape does not find corroboration from the medical

examination report of the prosecutrix (Ext.1).

(iv) The wearing clothes of the prosecutrix at the time of

occurrence, which may be stained with semen, were not

seized and sent for chemical examination to generate DNA

profile.

(v) The appellant was also not put under medical examination

and no blood sample was collected by the Investigating

Officer or any sample of semen etc, for arriving at truth of

allegations.

(vi) The Investigating Officer has failed to explain the aforesaid

serious latches while conducting the investigation of such a

serious and heinous offence.

(vii) The learned trial court has simply opined that irregularity in

investigation is not sufficient to disbelieve the evidence of

prosecutrix and ignored the above vital aspects of the case,

which are sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution story.

(viii) Learned trial court has also failed to consider that no

Panchyat was ever held and not a single witness claiming to

2026:JHHC:30962-DB

Page 7 of 23

Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.1283 &1337 of 2018

be the member of the Panchyat has been examined to

corroborate the factum of Panchyat, which is major cause of

delay in institution of the FIR.

(ix) Learned trial court has also ignored that the prosecutrix was a

widow lady aged about 50 years having 10 to 15 years old

child.

(x) Admittedly, she stayed in the house of one Prakash

Hembram (P.W.1) at night brought by one Lagu

Hansda(P.W.7) from the place of occurrence. But, he has

been declared hostile by the prosecution and not supported

the prosecution case regarding the commission of rape with

the prosecutrix by the preset appellant.

15. Mr. Dilip Kumar Karmakar, learned counsel for the appellants has also

relied upon the aforesaid grounds taken in the hearing of Criminal

Appeal (DB) No.1337 of 2018 and further pointed out following

grounds:-

(i) The prosecutrix was subjected to rape by four accused

persons but no spermatozoa whether dead or alive found and

also the medical report negates the commission of rape with

her.

(ii) The injuries found on the body of prosecutrix were also

opined by doctor (P.W.8) to be superficial in nature and may

be self inflicted.

2026:JHHC:30962-DB

Page 8 of 23

Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.1283 &1337 of 2018

(iii) The medical report of the victim also reveals no sign of

injuries on private part.

(iv) The prosecutrix was not known to the appellants by their

name rather claimed to identify them by their face and also

came to know their name in Panchyati. Under such

circumstances, Test Identification Parade must have been

conducted.

(v) The identification of the appellants for the first time in the

court was also wrong and the prosecutrix has failed to tell the

name of each of the appellant rightly.

(vi) The appellants have falsely been implicated in this case at the

instance of one Prakash Hembram (P.W.1), where she stayed

in the night at the house of Prakash Hembram(P.W.1) on the

relevant date of occurrence.

In the premises of aforesaid grounds, the impugned judgment

of conviction and sentence of the appellants is liable to be set aside and

the appellants are entitled for acquittal from the charge leveled against

them and these appeals may be allowed.

16. In the alternative, it is submitted that learned trial court has not properly

heard the appellants on the quantum of sentence and sentence has been

passed very harsh and disproportionate to the guilt of the appellants.

The appellants are all along in custody throughout the trial and

pendency of these appeals and have sufficiently been punished. As such,

2026:JHHC:30962-DB

Page 9 of 23

Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.1283 &1337 of 2018

the imprisonment already undergone by the appellants for the offence

under section 376(D) of IPC is sufficient punishment for their guilt.

Therefore, the sentence awarded to the appellants is also fit to be

reduced to the extent of imprisonment already undergone by them.

Submission on behalf of State and Informant:-

17. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted with learned

counsel for the informant has opposed the aforesaid points of argument

raised on behalf of the appellants in both the appeals and submitted that

learned trial court has very wisely and aptly considered all the aspects of

the case in a threadbare manner and arrived at right conclusion.

Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment

and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants, calling for any

interference by way of these appeals, which are fit to be dismissed.

18. We have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned

judgment and order in the light of contentions raised on behalf of the

both side.

19. The only point for determination in this appeal is that “as to whether

the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the

appellants passed by learned trial court suffers from any error of

law calling for any interference in these appeals?”

Analysis, Reasons and Decision:-

20. Before delving into adjudication of above point, we have to take brief

resume of ocular testimony of witnesses examined during trial.

2026:JHHC:30962-DB

Page 10 of 23

Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.1283 &1337 of 2018

The sterling witness of this case is the prosecutrix herself,

who has been examined as P.W.4. According to her evidence, about 3

years ago, the prosecutrix proceeded from her matrimonial home to her

parental home at village Amdapahari and as she reached near APO

Tola-Jerka-Amda Pahari in Lapit Chhencha Forest, all of a sudden, she

was surrounded by all the four accused persons, who caught hold of her

and brought towards drainage (nala) situated in the dense forest area

and committed rape with her one by one. Her mouth was gagged and

she was threatened to be killed by drowning in the ditch, if she raised

alarm. She has further deposed that at the time of commission of rape,

all the accused persons completely pulled out her clothes and she

became naked and they jointly committed rape upon her. In course of

commission of rape, some sounds of movement were heard, then

accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence. Thereafter, she

raised hulla and one Lagu Hansda(P.W.7), who was also going to

village APO Tola-Jerka-Amda Pahari, brought her to the house of

Prakash Hembram (P.W.1). In the next day morning, the village

Panchyat was convened at village Jerka, the residential place of the

accused persons and members of both villagers were called upon but the

accused persons were absconding and did not attend the Panchyati.

Thereafter, she lodged this case. She also stated that she was medically

examined at the instance of police and her statement was recorded by

2026:JHHC:30962-DB

Page 11 of 23

Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.1283 &1337 of 2018

the Magistrate. She has identified all the accused persons behind the

dock.

In her cross-examination, she admits that her husband died

three years prior to this occurrence and she has a son aged about 10 to

15 years. She has sustained injuries on her back and leg. She was

thrashed on the ground by pulling with her hairs. She also admits that at

the time of occurrence, the accused persons removed her all the clothes

except the petticoat. It is also stated that hearing some sounds of

movement, the accused persons left her and fled away. In the meantime,

Lagu Hansda (P.W.7), who was going on Amda Pahari in Lapit

Chhanchi Forest, met her and brought her at the house of Prakash

Hembram, where she stayed in the night. She has been suggested by the

defence that since in the night of the date of occurrence, she stayed in

the house of Prakash Hembram (P.W.1) and indulged in physical

relationship with him, which was seen by accused persons. Hence, in

order to save her honour, she has falsely implicated the accused persons

in a false rape case. It is here noteworthy that the identification of the

accused persons by the prosecutrix has not been questioned by the

defence rather a court question was asked to her to tell the name of

accused persons standing behind the bar from left to right. She has

stated some wrong name of accused persons but in subsequent question,

she reiterates that she might have disclosed the wrong name of any

accused but by face, she identified all of them, who have committed

2026:JHHC:30962-DB

Page 12 of 23

Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.1283 &1337 of 2018

rape upon her. She has also denied the suggestion of defence that at the

instance of Prakash Hembram (P.W.1), she has given the name of the

accused persons.

There is nothing else to cast any doubt in the testimony of the

prosecutrix.

21. The evidence of the prosecutrix further finds corroboration from the

evidence of P.W.8, Dr. Puja Priya, who has medically examined the

prosecutrix on 08.11.2013 at about 3:55 pm and following marks of

violence were found:-

(i) Multiple abrasions over right and left both side of back linear

in shape and red brown in colour. Appears to be caused by

sharp object. The age of injury has been opined to be 3 to 4

days.

(ii) Multiple abrasions over right and left both breasts, upper

quadrant red brown in colour linear in shape appear to be

cause by sharp object within 3 to 4 days.

(iii) Hymen was found old ruptured. No injuries were found on

the private part inside or outside the vagina.

(iv) No semen, blood or any other foreign materials were found

over vulva, vagina, thighs or public hair.

(v) No signs of injury over labia majora, labia minor, thighs or

inside or outside the vagina.

2026:JHHC:30962-DB

Page 13 of 23

Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.1283 &1337 of 2018

This witness has opined that no spermatozoa were found

after chemical examination. But it is definitely opined that sexual

intercourse took place. Therefore, physical injuries sustained by the

prosecutrix at the time of occurrence on her back, leg and breast etc.

also corroborates the occurrence happened with her. She has proved the

medical report as Ext.1.

P.W.1- Prakash Hembram is own brother of the

prosecutrix. Admittedly, the incident was disclosed to him by the

prosecutrix, who returned to his house along with Lagu Hansda (P.W.7)

and told that while she was coming to her parental home and reached in

the dense forest area of Lapit Chhencha Forest, the accused persons,

namely, Hemant Singh, Ramnath Singh, Bivhishan Singh and Fagu

Hansda have committed rape with her.

In his cross-examination, this witness categorically admits

that the prosecutrix was married lady aged about 45 years having 10

years old child. Her husband has been died but she is still residing at her

matrimonial home and she usually came to her parental home. He did

not find any mark of injuries on her cheeks, lips, neck and arms. He also

states that after the occurrence, his sister became so much depressed,

hence, there was a delay in lodging the FIR. He also admits in clear

terms that the name of the accused persons was disclosed to him by the

prosecutrix and he was not acquainted with the accused persons with

names. His village is at a distance of 3 kms from the matrimonial village

2026:JHHC:30962-DB

Page 14 of 23

Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.1283 &1337 of 2018

of the prosecutrix. He has denied the suggestion of defence that due to

village politics, his sister (prosecutrix) has lodged this false case against

the accused persons and he has taken money to give evidence.

P.W.2-Haradhan Soren came to know about the

occurrence, when he was called upon by the father and brother of the

prosecutrix. He further states that after the occurrence, when the

prosecutrix reached at her parental home, he interrogated with her about

the incident then, she disclosed that four accused persons have

committed rape with her in the forest area of Lapit Chhencha Forest

near a drain(nala). He also states that in the next day morning, a

Panchyati was convened in the village Jerka and the accused persons

were also informed but they did not attend the Panchyati. Hence, no

decision could be taken and the police case was instituted.

In his cross-examination, this witness admits that the parental

home of the prosecutrix is at a distance of 1 ½ kms from the village

Jerka. He has also noticed that there were some bruises in wrist and

hands of the victim. He is also acquainted with Lagu Hansda, who

belongs to his caste but he is not relative. This witness has denied the

suggestion of defence that he used to establish physical relationship

with the victim, which was seen by Fagu Hansda and objected along

with his three friends (co-accused persons). Then, at the instance of the

prosecutrix and in connivance with her mother and brother, she lodged

this false case.

2026:JHHC:30962-DB

Page 15 of 23

Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.1283 &1337 of 2018

P.W.3- Arod Soren is also cousin of the prosecutrix. He

came to know about the occurrence of gang rape committed by the

accused persons on disclosure of the prosecutrix, when she arrived at

her parental home. He also reiterates that a village Panchyati was

convened and the accused persons were also informed but they did not

attend the Panchyat rather they fled away. He has also identified all the

accused persons behind the dock.

There is nothing in his cross-examination to rebut his above

testimony. He has denied the suggestion of defence that after death of

her husband, the prosecutrix was physically exploited by Prakash

Hembram (P.W.1) rather he has further explained that Prakash

Hembram is full blood brother of the prosecutrix. He has also denied the

suggestion of defence that on the date of occurrence, the prosecutrix has

gone to see fair. He has also denied the suggestion of defence that on

the date of alleged occurrence, the prosecutrix stayed in the house of

Prakash Hembram, who committed rape upon her and seen by the

accused persons. Hence, she lodged this false case.

P.W.5-Narendra Nath Soren is also a hearsay witness of

the occurrence from the prosecutrix. It was disclosed by the victim lady

that the accused persons, namely, Hemanto, Fuchu, Bhuda and Fagu

have committed rape with her at Lapit Chhencha Forest while she was

in the way to her parental home. He also states that a Panchyat was

convened in the village Jerka but the accused persons did not attend the

2026:JHHC:30962-DB

Page 16 of 23

Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.1283 &1337 of 2018

Panchyati. Hence, this case was lodged. He identified the accused

persons behind the dock.

In his cross-examination, he admits that no document of

Panchyat was prepared because no accused persons attended the

Panchyat. He further states that village Mukhiya Khogendra Nath Singh

and village Pradhan Nandlal Soren were present. He also went to the

police station with the victim at the time of lodging FIR. He also admits

that on the date of occurrence at about 6:30 pm, he came to know about

the occurrence from the brother of the victim, namely, Prakash

Hembram (P.W.1) but denied the suggestion of defence that at the

instance of Prakash Hembram, the accused persons have falsely

implicated in this case.

P.W.6-Sutik Soren is also a hearsay witness and came to

know about the occurrence of rape committed with the prosecutrix by

the accused persons at Lapit Chhencha Forest at the time of village

Panchyati, when it was disclosed by the prosecutrix herself.

In his cross-examination, he has stated before the police that

the villagers told that at first Panchyati will be convened and the

accused persons will be punished by the Panchyat but the accused

persons did not attend the Panchyati. Then, this case was lodged.

P.W.7-Lagu Hansda has stated in his examination-in-chief

that he knows the prosecutrix, who resides at village Amda Pahari. It

was a season of Kalipuja when he met with the prosecutrix in the way

2026:JHHC:30962-DB

Page 17 of 23

Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.1283 &1337 of 2018

when she was wearing only blouse and petticoat. He stated nothing else

and denied the disclosure of incident to him by the victim and hence,

declared hostile by the prosecution. The attention of this witness has

been drawn towards his statement before the police under section 161 of

Cr.P.C, wherein he has stated that the occurrence of rape was disclosed

by the prosecutrix at the place of occurrence itself, then he brought her

to her parental house.

In his cross-examination, he admits that police from

Patamada Police Station came to his home and told him to give false

evidence in this case.

P.W.9-S.I. Makru Ram Asur has proved the endorsement

on written report for registration of FIR as Ext.2 and Formal FIR Ext.3.

He undertook the charge the investigation of this case on 08.11.2013.

He recorded the restatement of the victim and proceeded to the place of

occurrence and inspected the same, which is situated at a distance of 15

kms from the police station, known as Lapit Chhencha Forest area,

where all the accused persons committed rape with the victim one by

one. He has sent the victim for medical examination and also got her

statement recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C. and after finding

sufficient evidence, submitted charge-sheet.

In his cross-examination, this witness admits that he has not

noticed any mark of injuries on the body of the prosecutrix. He has

stated that the witness, Lagu Hansda (P.W.7) had not told him that

2026:JHHC:30962-DB

Page 18 of 23

Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.1283 &1337 of 2018

police had told him to give false evidence. He has also not interrogated

about the character of the victim. He has not inspected that there was

any love affair of the victim with her co-villager, Prakash Hembram

(P.W.1). He has also denied the suggestion of defence that in the tribal

community due to poverty, the people are dependent upon forest and

also live in a half-naked condition. He has also denied the suggestion of

defence that the prosecutrix was seen under objectionable condition

with Prakash Hembram by the accused persons, hence she lodged this

false case. He has also denied that his investigation is defective

inasmuch as he has not recorded the statement of independent witnesses

and seized nothing incriminating showing the involvement of the

accused persons in the alleged occurrence and submitted charge-sheet

without sufficient evidence.

22. The accused persons (appellants) in their statement recorded under

section 313 of Cr.P.C. have absolutely denied the occurrence and

simply pleaded their innocence. The trend of cross-examination of the

witnesses of facts and by way of suggestions given to the witnesses,

further plea of defence is that the prosecutrix was seen by the accused

persons under objectionable condition with Prakas Hembram (P.W.1). It

is also pleaded that the victim was usually indulged in sexual activity

with other persons due to death of her husband. However, no oral or

documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence.

2026:JHHC:30962-DB

Page 19 of 23

Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.1283 &1337 of 2018

23. Before embarking upon scrutinizing the evidence as discussed above, it

is pertinent hereto extract the relevant provisions of law for constituting

the offence of gang rape:-

“376D. Gang rape.- “Where a woman is raped by one or

more persons constituting a group or acting in furtherance of a common

intention, each of those persons shall be deemed to have committed the

offence of rape and shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a

term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to

life which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s

natural life, and with fine:

Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the

medical expenses and rehabilitation of the victim:

Provided further that any fine imposed under this section shall be

paid to the victim.

24. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of “Krishan Kumar Malik vs.

State of Haryan (2011) 7 SCC 130, has held that to hold an accused

guilty for commission of an offence of rape, the solitary evidence of the

prosecutrix sufficient, provided the same inspires confidence and

appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of

sterling quality.

25. Now, we have to proceed with evaluation of evidence in relation to the

charge leveled against the appellants keeping in mind the aforesaid

provisions of law for constituting the offence of rape, which is relevant

2026:JHHC:30962-DB

Page 20 of 23

Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.1283 &1337 of 2018

to this case. In the instant case, the prosecutrix (P.W.4) is the sterling

witness and has supported the prosecution case that on the date of

occurrence at about 2:30 to 3:00 pm, while she proceeded for her

parental home from her matrimonial home and as she reached near

Lapit Chhencha Forest area, four accused persons caught hold of her

and brought her to a drain and committed rape with her one by one.

When the prosecutrix tried to raise hulla, she was threatened to kill by

drowning in the nearby ditch. Upon hearing the movement of someone

near the place of occurrence, all the accused persons fled away from

there. Then, she met with one Lagu Hansda (P.W.7) and she was taken

to the house of Prakash Hembram P.W.1 (her own brother) and stayed

at his house over the night. On the next day, a Panchyati was convened,

but the accused did not attend the Panchyati. Thereafter, this case has

been lodged. The prosecutrix has properly explained the three days’

delay in lodging this case that the victim lady is a widow and illiterate

lady belonging to the village and there was a concept of meeting in the

village area prior to reporting the matter to the police, hence, as a result

of which, the delay has occurred. It further appears that the prosecutrix

has for the first time come to know about the names of all the accused

persons in the Panchyati. It is admitted fact that there was a forest area

in between her parental house and matrimonial house and the accused

persons taking the advantage of lonely place and the prosecutrix being

alone, they committed gang rape with her one by one and as a result of

2026:JHHC:30962-DB

Page 21 of 23

Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.1283 &1337 of 2018

which, she sustained injury in her back, breast, wrist and over her leg,

which has been corroborated by the medical examination report

conducted by Dr. Puja Priya (P.W.8) and found mark of violence over

person of the prosecutrix. It further transpires that in her cross-

examination, the prosecutrix admits that she has put her thumb

impression on the blank paper but this will also not affect the merit of

the prosecution case as the contents of written report, her evidence

before the court, her statement before judicial magistrate under section

164 of Cr.P.C. and her medical examination report, all consistently

support the incident of gang rape with her by all the accused persons. It

further appears that the prosecutrix is an illiterate widow lady and she

used to put her thumb impression. Therefore, minor contradictions and

discrepancies are always bound to occur. Hence, the minor

discrepancies or contradictions, if they are not shattering the very

substance of the prosecution case, should be ignored. P.W.3- Arod

Soren and P.W.5-Narendra Nath Soren, who have deposed in clear

terms that Prakash Hembram is full blood brother of the prosecutrix and

there cannot be physical relationship in between the prosecutrix and

Prakash Hembram as suggested by defence. Further defence of the

appellants is that due to village politics, the appellants have falsely been

implicated in this case, has no leg to stand, because no oral or

documentary evidence has been brought on record to substantiate the

same. It further transpires that the prosecutrix could not have identified

2026:JHHC:30962-DB

Page 22 of 23

Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.1283 &1337 of 2018

all the accused persons by their names but behind the dock, she has

identified them by their faces, who were involved in commission of

gang rape with her, so only due to fact that she could not identify the

accused persons by their names, her evidence cannot be doubted. It

further appears that the prosecutrix is a widow lady aged about 50 years

and there was a gap of 72 hours in between the incident of rape and

medical examination, hence, non-detection of sperm is natural

phenomena. However, the presence of marks of violence on other parts

of her body especially the breast, lower back are very important

corroborative piece of evidence to establish the occurrence of rape. In

the instant case, there is no reason for the prosecutrix to falsely

implicate the accused persons in such a heinous offence like gang rape

with her. Prosecutrix appears to be absolutely reliable and trustworthy

witness.

26. In view of the aforesaid discussion and reasons, we find that learned

trial court has committed no error of law in convicting the appellants for

the offence under section 376(D) of IPC, which is, hereby, upheld and

confirmed. We do not find any merits in these appeals, which stands

dismissed.

27. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly.

28. The appellant, Hemento Singh @ Hemant Singh @ Hato Singh of Cr.

Appeal (DB) No.1283 of 2018 is in custody. Let a copy of this

judgment be furnished forthwith to the appellant through learned A.P.P.

2026:JHHC:30962-DB

Page 23 of 23

Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.1283 &1337 of 2018

29. The appellants, namely, Ramnath Singh @ Munda Singh, Vibhishan

Singh @ Pnchu Singh and Fagu Hansda @ Sufal Hansda of Cr. Appeal

(DB) No.1337 of 2018 are on bail by way of an order passed by the Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court in I.A. No.2120 of 2024, thus their bail

bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged from their respective

liability of bail bonds. They are further directed to surrender before the

concerned trial court within two months from the date of the judgment

to suffer the sentence awarded to them, failing which, learned trial court

shall take all coercive steps for taking them into custody and sending

them to jail for sustaining the remaining period of sentence awarded to

them.

30. Let a copy of this judgment be sent back to the court concerned for

information and needful.

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

Per Ananda Sen, J. : I agree

(Ananda Sen, J.)

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi

Dated:-15/10 /2026

Pappu/-N.A.F.R.

Uploaded on 15 /10/2026