Jharkhand High Court
(Against The Judgment Of Conviction … vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 21 April, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad
2026:JHHC:11644-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
--------
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1247 of 2023
------
(Against the Judgment of conviction dated 05.04.2012 and order
of sentence dated 10.04.2012, passed by the learned 2nd
Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar, in Sessions Case No.222 of
2009)
------
Ajay Kumar Singh, son of Mahesh Prasad Singh resident of
Bawan Bigha near Ambe Garden, P.O., P.S. and District Deoghar
.... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
..... Respondent
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
.....
For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Senior Advocate
Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate
Mrs. Supriya Dayal, Advocate
Mrs. Lina Shakti, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A. P.P.
.....
C.A.V. on 26/03/2026 Pronounced on 21/04/2026
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer
1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment of conviction
dated 05.04.2012 and order of sentence dated 10.04.2012, passed
by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar, in Sessions
Case No.222 of 2009, by which, the appellant has been convicted
under section 376 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10
years along with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of
fine, he has further been directed to undergo R.I. for three months.
1
2026:JHHC:11644-DB
Prosecution Case
2. The prosecution case, in brief, as per the fardbeyan of the
informant, P.W.-4 (named concealed, hereafter to be referred
as ‘victim’), which was recorded on 18.11.2008, is that the
informant at the time of occurrence, was student of Class-X in
Red Rose School Kaster Town, Deoghar, and at that time, she
was aged about 15 years. She used to go near Subhash
Chowk before Aantoshi Tiwari for coaching in social science.
On 18.11.2008 at about 05.05 P.M., when she was returning
from aforesaid coaching, then, near Baman Bigha, Ambe
Garden, one Santanu Sidharth, who was her colleague in
school and studied with her in the coaching, met with her and
started talking together. At about 5.25 P.M., a man (appellant
herein) aged about 30 to 35 stating him a person of C.I.D.,
threatened them and took them at his house and in his house,
he prepared indecent photographs of the informant and
committed rape upon her. Thereafter, the aforesaid man
threatened, Santanu, and forced Santanu to commit rape on
informant and also prepared photograph. Then, the aforesaid
man made to wrote about marriage of the informant with
Santanu Sidharth on stamp paper of Rs. 10/- and then, they
were released and was threatened by the aforesaid man.
Informant further stated that at the time of occurrence, wife of
the aforesaid man (Ajay Kumar Singh) was also present there
2
2026:JHHC:11644-DB
and when she raised halla, then, Ajay (appellant herein) had
beaten the informant.
3. Thereafter, on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, FIR
being Town P.S. case no. 295 of 2008 dated 18.11.2008, under
Sections 292(B), 465, 376/34 and 496 of the IPC was
registered against the appellant.
4. After investigation, the charge sheet under Sections 292(B),
465, 376/34 and 496 of the IPC against the present appellant
and co-accused Santanu Sidharath was submitted. The
investigation continued against one of the accused Som Devi.
At the time of taking cognizance, co-accused Santanu
Sidharath was juvenile and his case was sent by the learned
C.J.M. to Juvenile Justice Board for trial.
5. Thereafter, the case was committed to the court of sessions.
Charges under Sections 292(2)/34, 465/34, 376/34 and 120B of
the IPC were framed against the accused person and trial
commenced.
6. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313
of the C.D.C., wherein, he denied the occurrence committed by
him and stated that on 18.11.2008, he was present at roof of
his house and from there, he saw victim and Santanu in
objectionable position in semi-constructed house and took their
photograph in his mobile phone and then, they became
nervous. On query, they said that they love each other and they
3
2026:JHHC:11644-DB
will marry. Then, he told them to prepare document about the
same, then, they made the document.
7. In course of trial, the prosecution had examined altogether six
witnesses, out of whom, P.W.-4 is the informant of the case;
P.W.-1 is the mother of informant; P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 are the
father and uncle of the informant respectively; P.W.-5 Dr. Roja
Minz and P.W.-6 is Sheo Kumar Pathak, who is the
Investigating Officer of the case.
8. Accordingly, the appellant has been found guilty and as such,
convicted and sentenced vide impugned judgment of conviction
dated 05.04.2012 and order of sentence dated 10.04.2012,
which is the subject matter of instant appeal.
Submissions of the learned senior counsel for the appellant
9. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the appellant has
submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order
of sentence suffers from infirmity on the following grounds:
(i) The prosecution has miserably failed to establish the
charge said to have been proved beyond all
reasonable doubts.
(ii) It has been contended that the appellant has not
committed the offence as alleged by the prosecution.
(iii) It has further been submitted that other witnesses are
the relatives of the informant, hence they are related
and interested witnesses and therefore, the testimony
of the said witnesses cannot be relied upon.
4
2026:JHHC:11644-DB
(iv) There is no any statement of any independent
witnesses in support of statement of informant.
(v) There are many vital contradictions in the evidence of
the prosecution witnesses.
(vi) Further, there are also many vital contradictions in the
statement of informant in the FIR.
(vii) P.W-4 victim made many contradictory statement in
her fardbeyan and in her evidence, hence, she is not
truthful and believable.
(viii) In the instant case, only the informant is the eye
witness of the occurrence and other witnesses of
prosecution are only hear-say witnesses.
(ix) Out of six witnesses examined, P.W-1, P.W.-2 and
P.W-3 are highly interested witnesses.
(x) The appellant has been acquitted of the charges under
sections 292(2)/34, 465/34 and 120B of IPC.
(xi) From the evidence it appears that victim and her friend
Santanu were indulged in sexual act, in an under-
construction house but, the story of prosecution has
been twisted.
(xii) Santanu Kumar, co-accused in the case, has not been
examined by the medical expert, though as per story
narrated by the prosecution, he had sexual intercourse
with the victim.
5
2026:JHHC:11644-DB
(xiii) It has further been submitted that although sperm was
found, but, the investigating officer of the case did not
send spermatozoa for examination of sperm.
(xiv) The testimonies of all the witnesses of prosecution are
not reliable and trustworthy.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant, on the aforesaid premise,
has submitted that the impugned judgment needs to be
interfered with.
Submission of the learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State
11. Per Contra, Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned Addl. Public
Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has taken the
following grounds in defending the impugned judgment of
conviction and sentence:
(i) It has been contended that all the witnesses in their
statement have fully supported the case of the
prosecution.
(ii) There is no any vital contradiction in the statement of
witnesses of prosecution and their statements are
reliable and trustworthy.
(iii) It has also been contended that taking into
consideration the oral and documentary evidences, the
prosecution has succeeded to prove all the charges
beyond all reasonable doubts.
6
2026:JHHC:11644-DB
(iv) Victim had informed the incident of rape committed on
her just after the occurrence to P.W.-1, P.W.2 and
P.W.-3.
(v) As per the testimony of the informant/victim P.W.-4,
the present appellant after threatening, had taken
obscene photograph of the informant and also asked
the Santanu to put off his cloth and then, he had taken
nude picture of her and Santanu.
(vi) The offence of rape committed by the
accused/appellant is corroborated by the medical
evidence of the doctor. In medical examination of the
victim, Doctor had found had found spermatozoa.
(vii) The Investigating Officer has also corroborated the
prosecution version by gathering the material in course
of investigation.
12. Learned A.P.P., based upon the aforesaid submission, has
submitted that the learned trial Court after taking into
consideration the testimony of the prosecution witnesses more
particularly the testimony of the informant/victim P.W.-4
corroborated by the medical examination, has passed the
impugned judgment of conviction, therefore, the same requires
no interference.
Analysis
13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the
documents available on record and the testimony of witnesses
7
2026:JHHC:11644-DB
as also the finding recorded by learned trial Court in the
impugned judgment.
14. This Court, on the basis of aforesaid factual aspect vis-à-vis
the argument advanced on behalf of parties, is now proceeding
to examine the legality and propriety of impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence.
15. This Court, before going into the legality and propriety of the
impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, deems it fit
and proper first to refer the testimony of prosecution witnesses.
16. P.W.-1 is the mother of the informant/victim. She has
deposed in her evidence that the occurrence took place on
18.11.2008 at about 5:30 p.m. in evening. At that time, she was
in her house and her daughter(victim), had gone for tuition at
Baman Bigha Mohalla and when her daughter did not return
back to house, she started searching for her. Her daughter,
was found weeping at Baman Bigha turn and she stated that
when she was coming back to house, her colleague Santanu
met with her and then she and Santanu were talking and at that
time, a man saying himself to be C.I.D., Inspector, took her to
his house and her daughter out of fear went to his house,
where his wife was also there.
17. P.W.-1 has further deposed that the said man (accused,
Ajay Singh) brought her daughter in another room of his house
and committed rape upon her and thereafter, he took obscene
photographs of her daughter and prepared documents on
8
2026:JHHC:11644-DB
stamp paper about marriage of Santanu and her daughter. Her
daughter any how fled away from there and saved her life. At
that time, her daughter was aged about 14 to 15 years.
Thereafter, she, along with her daughter and her husband went
at Police Station and lodged an FIR.
18. In her cross-examination, P.W.-1 has deposed that Santanu
Sidharath was studying with her daughter in Red Rose School.
P.W.-1 has further stated that she had gone in search of her
daughter by motorcycle and her daughter was found alone and
Santanu was also found at some distance.
19. P.W.-2 is the father of the informant. He has stated in his
evidence that occurrence was of 18.11.2008 at about 5-5.30
P.M., in the evening. At that time, he had gone to Jarmundi,
due to work when his wife telephoned him and informed that
something had happened to his daughter and on this
information, he came to Deoghar. His daughter told him that
she had gone to coaching(tuition) for studying Social Science at
Tiwari Chowk and after studying she was returning home, then,
on the way near Ambe Garden, she met one Santanu Sidharth,
who was her colleague and they started talking together about
studies. In the meantime, accused Ajay Singh of Baman Bigha
Mohalla came and said he is CID Officer and threatened his
daughter and took her to his house and committed rape on her.
P.W.-2 further stated that he along with her daughter and wife
went to Deoghar Town police station, where statement of her
9
2026:JHHC:11644-DB
daughter was recorded by the officer-in-charge. P.W.-1 has
identified his signature on the fardbeyan which was marked as
Ext.-1/1.
20. P.W.-3 is the uncle of the victim. He has stated in his
evidence that occurrence was of 18.11.2008 at about 5.30
P.M., in the evening. Her sister-in -law (bhabhi), informed her
on telephone and called him to his house. P.W.-3 further stated
that when he reached to her bhabhi’s house at Sahid Ashram
Mohalla, there her niece told him that when she was returning
home after studying from coaching, then on the way near
Baman Bigha, a person named Ajay Singh, represented himself
as CID Inspector, and took him to his house and that time a boy
name Santanu was along with his niece. Accused Ajay Kumar
Singh, threated his niece and took her to his house and
committed rape of his niece and at that time accused Ajay
Kumar Singh, daughter was present there.
21. P.W.-4 is the informant and the victim of the case. She
has stated in her evidence that occurrence took place on
18.11.2008 at about 6:00 p.m. in evening and at that time, she
was returning after taking tuition in social science to her house.
When she reached near Bamanbigha, her colleague of school,
namely, Santanu Sidharath met with her, then, both started
talking. In the meantime, a person (accused herein) came and
said he belongs to C.I.D., and said both have to go to their
10
2026:JHHC:11644-DB
house, to which they refused, but they were threatened and
forcefully taken to the house.
22. P.W.4, the Informant has further deposed that the said man
asked many questions and when they requested him to permit
them to return back to their house, then, this man (appellant
herein) abused them and at that time the wife of that person
was laying there and she was laughing. Informant further stated
that she and Santanu were taken in another room they were
made to write on stamp paper about their marriage and their
signature were taken. Informant had identified the writing and
signature of Santanu Sidharath and her writing and signature
on the stamp paper, which were marked as Ext.-2 and Ext.-2/1
respectively. Informant had also identified the signature of
accused Ajay Kumar Singh, on the stamp paper which was
signed before her, which is marked as Ext.-2/2.
23. The Informant has further deposed that when she said that
she has to go home, then, the accused slapped her and
switched off the light of the room. He assaulted Santanu and
ousted him from the room and closed the door of room and
committed rape on her. Then, accused brought Santanu to the
room and forced him to open his cloth and took obscene picture
of her and Santanu. Thereafter, the said man gave her gold
chain and told her to come there regularly and gave threatening
to kill if they disclose about the occurrence to anyone.
Thereafter, she along with Santanu moved towards their house
11
2026:JHHC:11644-DB
and in the way, her mother and brother met with her and then,
she told them about the occurrence. Then, she went to
Deoghar Nagar police station with her mother and father and
give her statement before the police and put her signature on it.
Informant has identified her signature on the fardbeyan which
was marked Ext.-1/2.
24. In her cross-examination, the informant has stated that on
the day of occurrence she had gone to the house of Aantoshi
Tiwari, for studying and she and Santanu, both used to read
there. On the day of occurrence Santanu had not gone for
studying and Santanu was not present in the batch in which
madam (Aantoshi Tiwari), had taught. informant stated that she
met Santanu at Bamanbigha, while she was returning home
after studying from madam ((Aantoshi Tiwari). Informant further
stated that the person who had come before them and said that
he was in C.I.D., was not in police uniform, but, in plain cloth.
The said accused person was walking with them and they
reached the house of the accused person approximately within
5-7 minutes. The house was two storied and had a stair. She
was taken at the first floor and Santanu was there and accused
wife was also there. Accused was threatening them that he had
revolver and answer what was questioned to her. The accused
was not armed with revolver, but he had knife in his hand. The
accused had told them to write on stamp paper about their
marriage as ordered by him. When she was in the room, then
12
2026:JHHC:11644-DB
time Santanu was sent in the room. Santanu had not committed
rape on her. Informant further stated that after coming out of
the house of the accused, she reached her home at about10-
10.30 P.M., in the night and at that time she was conscious, but
was she was disturbed. At paragraph-28, informant stated that
after the occurrence, she saw Ajay Singh (appellant herein) at
the police station and she had identified her.
25. P.W.-5, Dr. Roja Minz, had examined the informant/victim.
Doctor had stated in her evidence that on 19.11.2008, she was
posted as medical officer at Sadar Hospital, Deoghar. On that
day at about 12:00 O’ clock in noon on requisition of police, she
had examined the victim and found the following: –
Number of teeth :14-14=28
Height about 5” feet
Weight 44 Kg
Examination of external body -No injury found on her
breast or at her pant of body.
Breast developed, Auxiliary hair developed.
Examination of private part: – Pubic hair developed. No
foreign hair found on her pubic area. No injury mark on
pubic area. Hymen not intact, and admits one finger
during examination.
Complain of pain and tenderness present. Vaginal swab
taken and sent to pathological examination which was
done by pathologist doctor.
Finding: – epithelial 3+, R.B.C. 2+, W.B.C.1+
Very occasional spermatozoa were found. X-ray of hip
bone and wrist bone ichial crest appears but not fused
completely. Wrist joint appears and fused. Doctor opined
age of the victim about 16 years. No foreign hair present on
her pubic area during internal examination. Pain and
tenderness present. Intercourse has been done.
13
2026:JHHC:11644-DB
Doctor had proved the medical report of the victim which
was marked as Ext.-3.
26. P.W.-6 Shiv Kumar Pathak, is the Investigating Officer of
the case. He has deposed in his evidence that on 18.11.2008,
he was posted in Deoghar Town P.S., as officer-in-charge. On
that day, he had recorded the fardbeyan of the informant in his
handwriting and signature and the fardbeyan was marked as
Ext.-1/3. Investigating officer has proved the endorsement on
the fardbeyan made by him, which was marked as Ext.1/4 and
he has further proved the formal FIR which was marked as
Ext.-4. Investigating officer further stated that during the
investigation, he recorded the statement of witnesses and
collected the evidence from the place of occurrence and seized
it and prepared seizure list.
27. P.W.-6 has proved the search-cum-seizure list of Nokia
Mobile set and copy Santanu Sidharath, recovered from the
house of accused Ajay Kumar, which was marked as Ext.-5.
P.W.-6 had also proved the production-cum-seizure list of
clothes of the victim, which was marked as Ext.-6. P.W.-6 had
stated that the first place of place of occurrence is 500 yards
ahead of Ambe Garden, in an under-construction house, where
victim and Santanu Sidharath, were taken by accused Ajay
Kumar. The second place of occurrence is two storied houses
of accused Ajay Kumar situated at Bamanbigha, where rape is
said to be committed. P.W.-6 further stated that he had
prepared the requisition for medical examination of the victim,
14
2026:JHHC:11644-DB
which is in his handwriting and signature and the medical
examination requestion is marked as Ext.-3.
28. Now this Court is adverting to the contention of the learned
counsel for the parties, wherein, the learned counsel for the
appellant has mainly taken the ground that there is vital
contradiction in the statement of the prosecution witnesses vis-
à-vis in the deposition of informant/victim, therefore, the
conviction of the appellant under section 376 of IPC cannot be
based on the testimony of informant/victim, who is not reliable
witness. It has further been contended that the prosecution
witnesses P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3, are highly interested
witnesses as they are mother, father and uncle respectively of
the informant/victim and further the prosecution case has not
been corroborated by the medical evidence. Therefore, the
conviction of the appellant under Section 376 of IPC is not
sustainable in the eye of law.
29. On the other hand, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor
appearing for the State has stated that the discrepancies so
pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant are not enough
to disbelieve the prosecution story. Informant/victim in her
evidence has categorically deposed that the appellant had
threatened her and took her to his house and committed rape
upon her and the aforesaid fact has been substantiated by the
medical evidence.
15
2026:JHHC:11644-DB
30. This Court, on the basis of the aforesaid factual aspect vis-à-
vis the argument advanced on behalf of parties, is now
proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence by
formulating following questions to be answered by this Court:
(I) Whether the prosecution has proved the
guilt of the accused/appellant Ajay Kumar
Singh for the offence under section 376 of
IPC?
(II) Whether not sending the spermatozoa for
examination of sperm, is enough to
disbelieve the case of the prosecution?
Re: Issue No. (I)
31. This Court, is to decide the legality and propriety of the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, more
particularly, whether the informant/victim, P.W.-4, is trustworthy
and reliable, to convict the appellant under Section 376 of IPC.
32. This Court finds from the impugned judgment that learned
trial court has convicted the appellant under Section 376 of IPC
relying on the testimony of the informant/victim P.W.-4 which
was supported by the prosecution witnesses, i.e., P.W.-1, P.W.-
2 and P.W.-3, who are the mother, father and uncle
respectively of the informant/victim and further, by taking aid of
the medical examination report, Ext.-3.
16
2026:JHHC:11644-DB
33. Learned trial court, in the impugned judgment had noted that
just after the occurrence of rape, the victim/informant had said
about occurrence to P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3.
34. It is evident from record that in the present case, FIR was
registered against Ajay Kumar Singh (appellant herein) and
Santanu Sidharth and charge sheet were submitted against
both the accused persons. Since accused Santanu Sidharth
was juvenile and hence, his case was sent to Juvenile Justice
Board for trial.
35. Charges under Sections 292(2)/34, 465/34, 376/34 and
120B of the IPC were framed against the accused/appellant
Ajay Kumar Singh and at the conclusion of trial, the appellant
was acquitted of the charges under Sections 292(2)/34, 465/34
and 120 B of IPC, but he has been convicted under section 376
of IPC.
36. Before, we analyse and appreciate the circumstances that
have weighed with the trial court, this court, thinks it apposite to
refer the certain authorities pertaining to evidentiary value of
the evidence of the prosecutrix in offence of rape.
37. It is settled proposition of law that once the statement of the
prosecutrix inspires confidence and is accepted by the Court,
as such, conviction can be based only on the solitary evidence
of the prosecutrix.
38. The law is well settled that if evidence of the prosecutrix
inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking
17
2026:JHHC:11644-DB
corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for
some reason, the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance
on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may
lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required
in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix
must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and
the trial court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive
while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations, as per
the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384, for
ready reference, paragraph-21 of the said judgment is being
referred hereunder as :-
“21. Of late, crime against women in general and rape
in particular is on the increase. It is an irony that while
we are celebrating woman’s rights in all spheres, we
show little or no concern for her honour. It is a sad
reflection on the attitude of indifference of the society
towards the violation of human dignity of the victims of
sex crimes. We must remember that a rapist not only
violates the victim’s privacy and personal integrity, but
inevitably causes serious psychological as well as
physical harm in the process. Rape is not merely a
physical assault — it is often destructive of the whole
personality of the victim. A murderer destroys the
physical body of his victim, a rapist degrades the very
soul of the helpless female. The courts, therefore,
shoulder a great responsibility while trying an accused
on charges of rape. They must deal with such cases
with utmost sensitivity. The courts should examine the
broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by
minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the
statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal
18
2026:JHHC:11644-DBnature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution
case. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence,
it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of
her statement in material particulars. If for some reason
the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her
testimony, it may look for evidence which may
lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration
required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of
the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background
of the entire case and the trial court must be alive to its
responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases
involving sexual molestations.”
39. Likewise, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vishnu v.
State of Maharashtra, (2006) 1 SCC 283, has held as under: –
“25. The statement of the prosecutrix, in our view, is quite
natural, inspires confidence and merits acceptance. In the
traditional non-permissive bounds of society of India, no
girl or woman of self-respect and dignity would depose
falsely, implicating somebody of ravishing her chastity by
sacrificing and jeopardising her future prospect of getting
married with a suitable match. Not only would she be
sacrificing her future prospect of getting married and
having family life, but also would invite the wrath of being
ostracised and cast out from the society she belongs to
and also from her family circle. From the statement of the
prosecutrix, it is revealed that the accused induced her to
a hotel by creating an impression that his wife was
admitted in the hospital and that he would see her first and
then drop the prosecutrix at her residence whereas, in
fact, she was not admitted in the hospital. On the pretext
of going to Nanawati Hospital, he took her to a hotel, took
her inside a room, closed the door of the room, threatened
to finish her if she shouted and then forcibly ravished her
sexually. In our view, a clear case of rape, as defined
under Section 375 clause thirdly IPC has been established
against the accused. It is now a well-settled principle of19
2026:JHHC:11644-DBlaw that conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony
of the prosecutrix, if it inspires confidence.”
40. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raju v. State
of M.P., (2008) 15 SCC 133, held that evidence of a
prosecutrix should not be suspected and should be believed,
more so as her statement has to be evaluated on a par with
that of an injured witness and if the evidence is reliable, no
corroboration is necessary. Undoubtedly, the aforesaid
observations must carry the greatest weight and we respectfully
agree with them, but at the same time they cannot be
universally and mechanically applied to the facts of every case
of sexual assault which comes before the court. Paragraph-8,9
and 10 of the aforesaid judgment are quoted hereinbelow-
“8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
gone through the record. It is true that rape is one of the
most heinous and reprehensible of crimes that can be
committed on a woman and it is for this reason that courts
have leaned heavily in favour of such a victim. (See State of
Punjab v. Gurmit Singh [(1996) 2 SCC 384 : 1996 SCC (Cri)
316] .) In this matter, this Court allowed the State appeal
against acquittal and while convicting the accused under
Section 376 IPC, observed thus: (Gurmit Singh case [(1996)
2 SCC 384 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 316] , SCC p. 403, para 21)
“21. Of late, crime against women in general and rape in
particular is on the increase. It is an irony that while we are
celebrating women’s rights in all spheres, we show little or no
concern for her honour. It is a sad reflection on the attitude of
indifference of the society towards the violation of human
dignity of the victims of sex crimes. We must remember that
a rapist not only violates the victim’s privacy and personal
integrity, but inevitably causes serious psychological as well
as physical harm in the process. Rape is not merely a
physical assault–it is often destructive of the whole
20
2026:JHHC:11644-DBpersonality of the victim. A murderer destroys the physical
body of his victim, a rapist degrades the very soul of the
helpless female. The courts, therefore, shoulder a great
responsibility while trying an accused on charges of rape.
They must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. The
courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case
and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant
discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are
not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable
prosecution case. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires
confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking
corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for
some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit
reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which
may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration
required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the
prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the
entire case and the trial court must be alive to its
responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases
involving sexual molestations.”
(emphasis in original)
The Court also observed that the alarming frequency of
crimes against women had led Parliament to make some
special laws in the background that rape was a very serious
offence and that this was another factor which was to be kept
in mind while appreciating the evidence in such matters.
9. The observations in Gurmit Singh case [(1996) 2 SCC 384
: 1996 SCC (Cri) 316] were reiterated in Ranjit
Hazarika v. State of Assam [(1998) 8 SCC 635 : 1998 SCC
(Cri) 1725] in the following terms: (Gurmit Singh case [(1996)
2 SCC 384 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 316] , SCC pp. 395-96, para 8)
“8. … The courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain
alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting
woman would come forward in a court just to make a
humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved
in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual
molestation, supposed considerations which have no
material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or
even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should
21
2026:JHHC:11644-DB
not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal
nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable
prosecution case. The inherent bashfulness of the females
and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression
are factors which the courts should not overlook. The
testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there
are compelling reasons which necessitate looking
for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no
difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault
alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires
confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration
of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in
such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. Why should
the evidence of a girl or a woman who complains of rape or
sexual molestation, be viewed with doubt, disbelief or
suspicion? The court while appreciating the evidence of a
prosecutrix may look for some assurance of her statement to
satisfy its judicial conscience, since she is a witness who is
interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her, but
there is no requirement of law to insist upon corroboration of
her statement to base conviction of an accused. The
evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands almost on a par
with the evidence of an injured witness and to an extent is
even more reliable. Just as a witness who has sustained
some injury in the occurrence, which is not found to be self-
inflicted, is considered to be a good witness in the sense that
he is least likely to shield the real culprit, the evidence of a
victim of a sexual offence is entitled to great weight, absence
of corroboration notwithstanding. (emphasis supplied)
Corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of
judicial credence in every case of rape. Corroboration as a
condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the
prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of
prudence under given circumstances. It must not be
overlooked that a woman or a girl subjected to sexual assault
is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another
person’s lust and it is improper and undesirable to test her
evidence with a certain amount of suspicion, treating her as if
she were an accomplice. Inferences have to be drawn from a
22
2026:JHHC:11644-DB
given set of facts and circumstances with realistic diversity
and not dead uniformity lest that type of rigidity in the shape
of rule of law is introduced through a new form of testimonial
tyranny making justice a casualty. Courts cannot cling to a
fossil formula and insist upon corroboration even if, taken as
a whole, the case spoken of by the victim of sex crime strikes
the judicial mind as probable.”
(emphasis in original)
10. The aforesaid judgments lay down the basic principle that
ordinarily the evidence of a prosecutrix should not be
suspected and should be believed, more so as her statement
has to be evaluated on a par with that of an injured witness
and if the evidence is reliable, no corroboration is necessary.
Undoubtedly, the aforesaid observations must carry the
greatest weight and we respectfully agree with them, but at
the same time they cannot be universally and mechanically
applied to the facts of every case of sexual assault which
comes before the court.”
40. Again, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Narender
Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 7 SCC 171, reiterated
the earlier view laid down in the earlier judgments of the Hon’ble
Apex Court. For ready reference, paragraphs -20, 21 and 22 of
the aforesaid judgment are being quoted hereinbelow:-
“20. It is a settled legal proposition that once the statement of
the prosecutrix inspires confidence and is accepted by the
court as such, conviction can be based only on the solitary
evidence of the prosecutrix and no corroboration would be
required unless there are compelling reasons which
necessitate the court for corroboration of her statement.
Corroboration of testimony of the prosecutrix as a condition
for judicial reliance is not a requirement of law but a guidance
of prudence under the given facts and circumstances. Minor
contradictions or insignificant discrepancies should not be a
ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution
case.
23
2026:JHHC:11644-DB
21. A prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the
offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. Her
testimony has to be appreciated on the principle of
probabilities just as the testimony of any other witness; a
high degree of probability having been shown to exist in view
of the subject-matter being a criminal charge. However, if the
court finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix
on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or
substantial (sic circumstantial), which may lend assurance to
her testimony. (Vide Vimal Suresh
Kamble v. Chaluverapinake Apal S.P. [(2003) 3 SCC 175 :
2003 SCC (Cri) 596 : AIR 2003 SC 818] and Vishnu v. State
of Maharashtra [(2006) 1 SCC 283 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 217 :
AIR 2006 SC 508].)
22. Where evidence of the prosecutrix is found suffering from
serious infirmities and inconsistencies with other material, the
prosecutrix making deliberate improvement on material point
with a view to rule out consent on her part and there being no
injury on her person even though her version may be
otherwise, no reliance can be placed upon her evidence.
(Vide Suresh N. Bhusare v. State of Maharashtra [(1999) 1
SCC 220: 1998 SCC (Cri) 1595] .)”
41. Hence, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases of
rape has laid down that, conviction can be based solely on the
solitary evidence of the prosecutrix, if evidence of the
prosecutrix inspires confidence and it must be relied upon
without seeking corroboration of her statement in material
particulars. Evidence of a prosecutrix should be evaluated on a
par with that of an injured witness and if the evidence is
reliable, no corroboration is necessary.
24
2026:JHHC:11644-DB
42. Hence, this court is now proceeding to examine the
evidence of the informant/victim P.W.-4, in the backdrop of
aforesaid legal proposition.
43. The Informant P.W.-4, has deposed in her examination-in-
chief that on the date of occurrence, on 18.11.2008 at about
6:00 p.m. in evening she was returning to her house after
taking tuition in social science. When she reached near
Bamanbigha, her colleague of school, namely, Santanu
Sidharath met with her, then, both started talking, in the
meantime, a person (appellant herein) came and said he
belongs to C.I.D., and said both have to go to his house, to
which they refused, but they were threatened and forcefully
taken to the house. Informant and Santanu were taken to the
other room of the house and when informant said that she has
to go home, then, that person (appellant herein) slapped her
and switched off the light of the room and assaulted Santanu
and ousted him from the room. Then, accused/appellant closed
the door of room and committed rape on her and gave
threatening to kill if they disclose about the occurrence to
anyone. Thereafter, she along with Santanu moved towards
their house and in way her mother and brother met with her and
then, she told them about the occurrence.
44. Further, in her cross-examination informant/victim stated that
on the day of occurrence, she had gone to the house of
Aantoshi Tiwari(teacher) for her study. Informant further stated
25
2026:JHHC:11644-DB
that the person (appellant herein) who had come before them
and told that he was in CID but he was not in police uniform,
but he was in plain cloth. The said person had threatened her
and Santanu and took them to his house and hence, they did
not raise halla. The house was two storied and she was taken
at the first floor. The accused was armed with knife in his hand.
Informant had also deposed that she had stated before the
police that accused Ajay Kumar Singh (appellant herein) had
closed the room and forcefully committed rape upon her.
Informant/victim further stated that after coming out of the
house of the accused, she reached her home at about10-10.30
P.M., in the night and at that time she was conscious, but was
she was disturbed. The informant/victim stated that after the
occurrence, she saw Ajay Singh (appellant herein) at the police
station and she had identified her.
45. Further, in order to test the veracity of the testimony of the
informant/victim, this Court has gone through the testimony of
P.W.-1 and P.W.-3, who are the mother, and uncle of the
informant respectively.
46. P.W.-1 mother of the informant has deposed that on
18.11.2008 at about 5:30 p.m. in evening her daughter had
gone to read tuition at Baman Bigha Mohalla and when her
daughter did not return back to her house, she started
searching for her and her daughter, was found weeping at
Baman Bigha turn. Her daughter has stated that when she was
26
2026:JHHC:11644-DB
coming back to house, her colleague Santanu met with her and
then she and Santanu were talking and at that time, a man
(appellant herein) saying himself to be C.I.D., Inspector, took
her to his house, and her daughter out of fear went to his
house. The said person (appellant herein) brought her daughter
in another room of his house and committed rape upon her. Her
daughter any how fled away from there and saved her life.
Thereafter, she along with her daughter and her husband went
at police station and lodged an FIR.
47. P.W.-3, uncle of the informant has deposed that on
18.11.2008 at about 5.30 P.M., in the evening, his sister-in -law
(bhabhi), informed her on telephone and called him to his
house. P.W.-3 further stated that when he reached to her
bhabhi’s house at Sahid Ashram mohalla, there her
niece(informant/victim) told him that when she was returning
home after studying from coaching, then on the way near
Baman Bigha, a person named Ajay Singh (appellant herein),
represented himself as CID Inspector, took him to his house
and that time a boy named Santanu was along with his niece.
Ajay Singh (appellant herein) threatened her niece and
committed rape upon his nice.
48. Further, the Doctor P.W.-5, who has examined the
informant, has deposed that very occasional, spermatozoa
were found in private part of the victim and she further stated
that sexual intercourse has been done with the victim.
27
2026:JHHC:11644-DB
49. P.W.-6 Shiv Kumar Pathak, is the Investigating Officer of the
case. In his deposition, the Investigating Officer has deposed
that there are two places of occurrence-first place of
occurrence is 500 yards ahead of Ambe Garden, in an under-
construction house, where victim and Santanu Sidharath, were
taken by accused/appellant, Ajay Singh. The second place of
occurrence was two storied houses of accused Ajay Kumar
situated at Bamanbigha, and in this house of accused Ajay
Singh, the incident of rape was said to have been taken place.
50. Thus, from the aforesaid, this Court finds that
informant/victim in her evidence has deposed that on date of
occurrence, on 18.11.2008 at about 6:00 p.m. in evening, when
she was returning home after taking tuition from the house of
Aantoshi Tiwari(teacher), in the meanwhile she met with her
colleague Santanu and they were talking, then in the meantime,
a man (appellant herein) saying himself to be C.I.D., Inspector,
came and said both have to go to his house, to which they
refused, but they were threatened and forcefully taken by the
accused/appellant, to his house. In his house (appellant herein)
slapped her and switched off the light and assaulted Santanu
and ousted him from the room. Then, accused/appellant closed
the door of room and committed rape on her and gave
threatening to kill if they disclose about the occurrence to
anyone.
28
2026:JHHC:11644-DB
51. Further, in her cross-examination, informant/victim has
disclosed that the accused was armed with knife in his hand
and had forcefully committed rape on her.
52. Further, from the evidence, this Court finds that when
informant/victim did not return home after taking tuition, then
Informant’s mother (P.W.-1), started searching for her daughter
and her daughter, was found weeping at the Baman Bigha
more and her daughter make her known that accused/appellant
had threatened her and took her to his house and committed
rape on her.
53. Likewise, informant/victim just after the occurrence of rape
has informed her father (P.W.-2) and uncle (P.W.-3), about the
rape committed on her by the accused/appellant.
54. Doctor P.W.-5, who has examined the informant/victim, has
also found occasional spermatozoa and had opined that the
intercourse had been done.
55. Thus, in entirety on appraisal of evidences, this Court finds
that informant/victim, in her examination-in chief as well in her
cross-examination remained intact on the point that the
appellant has forcefully took her to his house and committed
rape upon her, which is corroborated by P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and
P.W.-3, to whom the informant/victim, just after the incident of
rape, has informed them about the alleged crime. Further,
Doctor, P.W.-5 has found occasional spermatozoa and opined
that intercourse had been done.
29
2026:JHHC:11644-DB
56. Thus, as per settled position of law as settled by the Hon’ble
Apex Court as discussed and referred hereinabove that the
evidence of a prosecutrix should be evaluated on a par with
that of an injured witness and if the evidence is reliable, no
corroboration is necessary.
57. In the present case, the informant/victim in her examination-
in-chief as well as in her cross-examination has deposed that
she was threatened and forcefully taken by the
accused/appellant in his house and was raped by the
accused/appellant which has fully been substantiated by the
evidence of other prosecution witnesses.
58. It is pertinent to note herein that at the relevant time, the
informant/victim was student of class 10th and was in her
adolescent and tender age of about 16 years supported by the
doctor evidence and further, this Court has found that the case
of prosecution has fully corroborated and substantiated by the
other material evidences available on record and as such, it is
the considered view of this Court that the charges under
section 376 IPC has been established by the prosecution
beyond reasonable doubt.
59. Accordingly, issue no. (i) is, hereby, answered against the
appellant.
Issue no.(II)
30
2026:JHHC:11644-DB
60. With respect to the second issue, i.e., whether not sending
the spermatozoa for examination of sperm, is enough to
disbelieve the case of the prosecution?
61. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that
although sperm was found, but, the Investigating Officer of the
case did not send spermatozoa for examination of sperm.
62. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that
the informant/victim and Shantanu were indulged in sexual act,
but in order to save their skin, false case has been lodged
against the appellant and this real fact has not been considered
by the learned trial Court.
63. Admittedly, the aforesaid instance is the indicative of
perfunctory investigation but it is settled position of law that
sterling evidence of the prosecution witness cannot thrown
away due to laches in the investigation.
64. At this juncture, it would be pertinent to note the judgments
rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court on defective investigation.
The law is well settled that in cases of defective investigation;
the Court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence but
it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on
account of the defect.
65. In case of Karnel Singh v. State of M.P., (1995) 5 SCC
518, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that in cases of defective
investigation, the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the
evidence but it would not be right in acquitting an accused
31
2026:JHHC:11644-DB
person solely on account of the defect; to do so would
tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer
if the investigation is designedly defective. Paragraph-5 of this
judgment is quoted herein below :
“5. Notwithstanding our unhappiness regarding the nature
of investigation, we have to consider whether the evidence
on record, even on strict scrutiny, establishes the guilt. In
cases of defective investigation the court has to be
circumspect in evaluating the evidence but it would not be
right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of
the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the
hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is
designedly defective. Any investigating officer, in fairness
to the prosecutrix as well as the accused, would have
recorded the statements of the two witnesses and would
have drawn up a proper seizure-memo in regard to the
‘chaddi’. That is the reason why we have said that the
investigation was slipshod and defective.”
66. Further, in case of Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar,
(1998) 4 SCC 517, the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down that
acts or omissions of the officers of the prosecution should not
be taken in favour of the accused, for that would amount to
giving premium for the wrongs of the prosecution designedly
committed to favour the appellant. For ready reference,
paragraph-13 of this judgment is quoted hereinbelow:-
“13. Before parting with this case we consider it
appropriate to observe that though the prosecution has
to prove the case against the accused in the manner
stated by it and that any act or omission on the part of
the prosecution giving rise to any reasonable doubt
would go in favour of the accused, yet in a case like the
present one where the record shows that investigating
32
2026:JHHC:11644-DBofficers created a mess by bringing on record Exh. 5/4
and GD Entry 517 and have exhibited remiss and/or
deliberately omitted to do what they ought to have done
to bail out the appellant who was a member of the police
force or for any extraneous reason, the interest of justice
demands that such acts or omissions of the officers of
the prosecution should not be taken in favour of the
accused, for that would amount to giving premium for the
wrongs of the prosecution designedly committed to
favour the appellant. In such cases, the story of the
prosecution will have to be examined dehors such
omissions and contaminated conduct of the officials
otherwise the mischief which was deliberately done
would be perpetuated and justice would be denied to the
complainant party and this would obviously shake the
confidence of the people not merely in the law-enforcing
agency but also in the administration of justice.”
67. Again, in case of State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy,
(1999) 8 SCC 715, the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down that
investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a
criminal trial, the conclusion of the court in the case cannot be
allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation. It is
settled that even if the investigation is illegal or even suspicious
the rest of the evidence must be scrutinized independently of
the impact of it. Relevant paragraph of this judgment is being
quoted hereinbelow:-
“19. But can the above finding (that the station house diary is
not genuine) have any inevitable bearing on the other
evidence in this case? If the other evidence, on scrutiny, is
found credible and acceptable, should the Court be
influenced by the machinations demonstrated by the
investigating officer in conducting investigation or in33
2026:JHHC:11644-DBpreparing the records so unscrupulously? It can be a guiding
principle that as investigation is not the solitary area for
judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial, the conclusion of the court
in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity
of investigation. It is well-nigh settled that even if the
investigation is illegal or even suspicious the rest of the
evidence must be scrutinized independently of the impact of
it. Otherwise the criminal trial will plummet to the level of the
investigating officers ruling the roost. The court must have
predominance and pre-eminence in criminal trials over the
action taken by investigating officers. Criminal justice should
not be made a casualty for the wrongs committed by the
investigating officers in the case. In other words, if the court
is convinced that the testimony of a witness to the
occurrence is true the court is free to act on it albeit the
investigating officer’s suspicious role in the case.”
68. In case of C. Muniappan v. State of T.N., (2010) 9 SCC
567, the Hon’ble Apex Court, laid down that there may be highly
defective investigation in a case. However, it is to be examined
as to whether there is any lapse by the Investigating officer and
whether due to such lapse any benefit should be given to the
accused. The law on this issue is well settled that the defect in
the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal.
Paragraph-55 of this judgment is quoted hereinbelow:-
“55. There may be highly defective investigation in a case.
However, it is to be examined as to whether there is any
lapse by the IO and whether due to such lapse any benefit
should be given to the accused. The law on this issue is well
settled that the defect in the investigation by itself cannot be
a ground for acquittal. If primacy is given to such designed or
negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by
perfunctory investigation, the faith and confidence of the
people in the criminal justice administration would be eroded.
34
2026:JHHC:11644-DB
Where there has been negligence on the part of the
investigating agency or omissions, etc. which resulted in
defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the part
of the court to examine the prosecution evidence dehors
such lapses, carefully, to find out whether the said evidence
is reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable and as to
whether such lapses affected the object of finding out the
truth. Therefore, the investigation is not the solitary area for
judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial. The conclusion of the trial
in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity
of investigation. (Vide Chandrakant Luxman v. State of
Maharashtra [(1974) 3 SCC 626 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 116 : AIR
1974 SC 220] , Karnel Singh v. State of M.P. [(1995) 5 SCC
518 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 977] , Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of
Bihar [(1998) 4 SCC 517 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1085 : AIR 1998
SC 1850] , Paras Yadav v. State of Bihar [(1999) 2 SCC 126
: 1999 SCC (Cri) 104] , State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa
Reddy [(1999) 8 SCC 715 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 61 : AIR 2000
SC 185] , Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh [(2003) 2 SCC 518
: 2003 SCC (Cri) 641] , Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of
Gujarat [(2002) 3 SCC 57 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 519] and Ram
Bali v. State of U.P. [(2004) 10 SCC 598 : 2004 SCC (Cri)
2045] )”
69. Again, in case of Ashok Kumar Singh Chandel v. State of
U.P., (2022) 20 SCC 114, the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down
that this Court has observed in a number of cases that
defective investigation by the investigating authorities by itself
does not vitiate the case of the prosecution when there are
credible eyewitness testimonies as well as other compelling
pieces of evidence. Paragraph-156 and 157 of the aforesaid
judgment are being quoted herein below:-
“156. Fax is not part of the investigation. Even assuming that
there is some defect in the investigation on this count, it will35
2026:JHHC:11644-DBhave no bearing on the prosecution case. This Court has
observed in a number of cases that defective investigation by
the investigating authorities by itself does not vitiate the case
of the prosecution when there are credible eyewitness
testimonies as well as other compelling pieces of evidence.
In Karnel Singh v. State of M.P. [Karnel Singh v. State of
M.P., (1995) 5 SCC 518 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 977] this Court
held that : (SCC p. 521, para 5)
“5. … In cases of defective investigation the court has to be
circumspect in evaluating the evidence but it would not be
right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the
defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands
of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly
defective.”
(emphasis supplied)
157. Similarly in C. Muniappan v. State of T.N. [C.
Muniappan v. State of T.N., (2010) 9 SCC 567 : (2010) 3
SCC (Cri) 1402] this Court held : (SCC p. 589, para 55)
“55. There may be highly defective investigation in a case.
However, it is to be examined as to whether there is any
lapse by the IO and whether due to such lapse any benefit
should be given to the accused. The law on this issue is well
settled that the defect in the investigation by itself cannot be
a ground for acquittal. If primacy is given to such designed or
negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by
perfunctory investigation, the faith and confidence of the
people in the criminal justice administration would be eroded.
Where there has been negligence on the part of the
investigating agency or omissions, etc. which resulted in
defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the part
of the court to examine the prosecution evidence dehors
such lapses, carefully, to find out whether the said evidence
is reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable and as to
whether such lapses affected the object of finding out the
truth. Therefore, the investigation is not the solitary area for
judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial.”
(emphasis supplied)
36
2026:JHHC:11644-DB
70. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law, this
Court is of the considered view that since in the instant case,
there is credible evidence of the informant/victim P.W.-4, who
has deposed that the appellant had forcefully took her to his
house and committed rape upon her, which has been
corroborated by the prosecution witnesses, i.e., P.W.-1, P.W.-2
and P.W.-3, to whom the informant/victim, just after the incident
of rape upon her, had informed them and further, the aforesaid
fact has also been fortified by the Doctor, P.W.-5 who has also
found occasional spermatozoa and opined that intercourse has
been done, therefore, as per the ratio rendered by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Singh Chandel v.
State of U.P., (supra) the benefit of perfunctory investigation
cannot be extended to the present appellant.
71. Accordingly, issue no. (ii) is, hereby, answered.
72. Further, appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C., has denied the occurrence committed by him and
stated that on 18.11.2008, he was present at roof of his house
and from there, he saw victim and Santanu in objectionable
position in semi constructed house and took their photograph in
his mobile phone and then they became nervous. On query,
they said that they love each other and they will marry. Then,
he told them to prepare document about the same, then, they
made the document.
37
2026:JHHC:11644-DB
73. But, informant/victim has deposed in her evidence that
accused/appellant had threatened her and had taken to his
house and forcibly committed rape on her.
74. Hence, this Court is of the view that the appellant cannot
escape from the inference that he did not rape the
informant/victim in his house.
75. This Court, after having discussed the factual aspect and
legal position and considering the finding recorded by the
learned trial Court, is of the view that the learned trial Court has
well appreciated the evidences available on record and has
also given thoughtful consideration to the testimonies of the
witnesses and has come to the conclusion that the prosecution
has been able to prove the charge beyond all shadow of doubts
against the present appellant, therefore, the impugned order
requires no interference by this Court.
76. This Court, in the entirety of the facts and circumstances, is
of the view that the prosecution has proved the charges under
section 376 of IPC against the appellant beyond all reasonable
doubt for the reasons and grounds, as discussed hereinabove.
77. Accordingly, impugned Judgment of conviction dated
05.04.2012 and order of sentence dated 10.04.2012, passed by
the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar, in
Sessions Case No.222 of 2009, requires no interference by this
Court.
38
2026:JHHC:11644-DB
78. In consequence thereof, the instant appeal stands
dismissed.
79. In consequence upon dismissal of the appeal, the appellant
since is enjoying the suspension of sentence after order having
been passed by this Court directing to release him during
pendency of the appeal, therefore, the bail bond of appellant is
hereby cancelled and appellant is directed to surrender before
the learned Trial Court for serving out the remaining sentence
passed against him.
80. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
81. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court
concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this Judgment.
I Agree. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Sanjay Prasad, J.) (Sanjay Prasad, J.)
21/04/2026
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Rohit/-A.F.R.
Uploaded on 22.04.2026
39