Jharkhand High Court
Azad Mian vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 July, 2026
2026:JHHC:20742
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.640 of 2005
......
[Against the Judgment of conviction dated 31.05.2005 and Order of
sentence dated 01.06.2005, passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Jamtara in Special Case No.28 of 2002]
......
Azad Mian, son of Late Yusuf Mian, resident of village Panjonia,
P.S. & District Jamtara. ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
... Respondent
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Adv.
Mrs. Rajni Singh, Adv.
Mr. Sameer Kant, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P.
------
PRESENT
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
Dated- 10.07.2026
By Court:-
1. Heard Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant as well as Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, learned
Addl. P.P. appearing for the State.
2. Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant
challenging the judgment of conviction dated 31.05.2005 and
order of sentence dated 01.06.2005 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Jamtara in
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.640 of 2005 Page | 1
2026:JHHC:20742Special Case No. 28 of 2002 whereby and whereunder the
appellant has been held guilty for the offences under Sections
3(xi) and 3(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 341 and 447
of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment (R.I.) for five years for each of the offences
punishable under Sections 3(xi) and 3(xii) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
R.I. for one month for the offence punishable under Section
341 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for three months for the offence
punishable under Section 447 of the I.P.C. All the sentences
were directed to run concurrently.
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on
30.01.1998, the informant had gone to Panjania village to
attend a fair. It is alleged that while she was returning home,
the accused followed her, chased her, forcibly caught hold of
her and took her to a nearby field, where he committed rape
against her will. It is further alleged that when the informant
raised alarm, the accused attempted to kill her and upon her
resistance, assaulted her, causing injuries including a fracture
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.640 of 2005 Page | 2
2026:JHHC:20742to her leg.
On the basis of above written report, Jamtara P.S. Case
No. 35 of 1998 was registered for the offences under Sections
341, 376, 325 of the I.P.C. and Sections 3(xi) and 3(xii) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act.
4. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was
submitted against the appellant for the offences under
Sections 341, 325, 376 and 447 of the I.P.C. and Sections 3(xi)
and 3(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Accordingly, cognizance was
taken and subsequently, the case was committed to the
Special Court where Special Case No.28 of 2002 was
registered. Charges were framed against the accused
appellant which was read over and explained to him for
which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In the course of trial, altogether nine witnesses were
examined and no documentary evidence has been adduced by
the prosecution.
6. On the other hand, statement of the victim recorded
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.640 of 2005 Page | 3
2026:JHHC:20742
under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. has been adduced by defence.
7. After conclusion of trial, the appellant was held guilty
for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as stated above
which has been assailed in this appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently
argued that P.W.2 is father-in-law of the victim and P.W.3 is
husband of the victim have been declared hostile by the
prosecution. P.W.4 and P.W.5 have also been declared hostile
by the prosecution. There is no eye witness of the occurrence.
It is further submitted that no offences under Sections 3(xi)
and 3(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out against the
appellant because no insulting or humiliating words were
used against the informant in the name of his caste. It is
further submitted that the genesis of occurrence itself depicts
that the dispute arose between the parties due to grazing of
cattle in the field of the informant victim, who belong to the
tribal community. Therefore, there is strong probability that
due to grazing in field of victim, some scuffle took place in
which the informant was dashed and sustained injury. It is
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.640 of 2005 Page | 4
2026:JHHC:20742
submitted that doctor has not been examined. Learned trial
court has miserably failed to properly appreciate the overall
evidence adduced by the prosecution in its right perspective
considering the core testimony of every witness and arrived at
wrong conclusion about guilt of the appellant. It is further
submitted that the learned Court below also failed to
undertake any meaningful consideration of the materials
collected during investigation. Therefore, impugned judgment
is not tenable under law and fit to be set aside and this appeal
may be allowed.
9. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the
State controverting the aforesaid arguments submitted that
there is no substance in the points of arguments raised by the
appellant. Learned trial court has very wisely and aptly
considered the overall factual aspects of the case, which has
been proved by the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, there is
no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment calling for
any interference by way of this appeal, which is devoid of
merits and fit to be dismissed.
10. I have given anxious consideration to the aforesaid
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.640 of 2005 Page | 5
2026:JHHC:20742
contentions raised on behalf of both sides and also perused
the impugned judgment and order along with materials
available on record.
11. The only point for consideration is that as to “whether
the impugned judgment and order of conviction and
sentence of the appellant suffer from any serious error of
law calling for any interference in this appeal ?”
12. Before embarking upon adjudicating the above points,
it is pertinent to take brief resume of the evidence available on
record.
13. It appears that in the course of trial altogether nine
witnesses were examined by the prosecution out of them
P.W.2 Baburam Marandi, P.W.3 Rubilal Marandi, P.W.4 Vakil
Marandi and P.W.5 Rubin Mohali was declared hostile and
did not support the prosecution case. P.W.2 Baburam
Marandi who is the father-in-law of the informant and was
declared hostile, did not claim to have witnessed the
occurrence and merely stated that after hearing the cries of the
informant, he came to know that the appellant had committed
the alleged occurrence. His evidence is, therefore, hearsay in
nature and does not establish the ingredients of the offences in
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.640 of 2005 Page | 6
2026:JHHC:20742
question.
P.W.3 Rubilal Marandi is the husband of the
informant, was also declared hostile. Similar to P.W.2, he
reached the place of occurrence after the incident and only
narrated what the informant allegedly disclosed to him. His
testimony is not substantive evidence regarding the alleged
wrongful restraint, criminal trespass or offences under the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act.
P.W.4 Vakil Marandi was also declared hostile, he has
merely stated that he had heard from his father that the
appellant had assaulted the informant and fractured her leg.
His evidence is purely hearsay and does not advance the
prosecution case regarding the offences for which the
appellant has been convicted.
P.W.5 Rubin Mohali was also declared hostile and did
not support the prosecution case
P.W.6 Maharani Devi has deposed that she had
accompanied the informant to the village fair and on the
following morning, came to know that the appellant had
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.640 of 2005 Page | 7
2026:JHHC:20742
assaulted the informant and fractured her leg. Admittedly,
she had not witnessed the occurrence and her evidence is
based solely on information received from others.
P.W.7 Suntari Hansda is also hearsay. He stated that
after returning from the village fair, she heard in the morning
that the informant had sustained injuries allegedly at the
hands of the appellant.
P.W.8 Sarumuni Hansda has also admitted that she
returned from the village fair with the informant and only
heard on the following morning that the informant had
lodged the case against the appellant. She is not an eyewitness
to the occurrence and her testimony does not corroborate the
prosecution case.
P.W.9 Dependra Prasad Thakur is the Investigating
Officer of the case, who was posted as the S.D.P.O. at the
relevant time. He has deposed that during the course of
investigation he recorded the statements of the prosecution
witnesses. According to him, P.W.2 Baburam Marandi, P.W.3
Rubilal Marandi, P.W.4 Wakil Marandi and P.W.5 Rubin
Mohali had stated before him that the accused had outraged
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.640 of 2005 Page | 8
2026:JHHC:20742
the modesty of the victim and thereafter committed forcible
rape upon her. He further stated that these witnesses had also
disclosed that when the informant resisted, the accused
assaulted her, causing fracture of her leg.
During cross-examination, when the attention of the
Investigating Officer was drawn to the fact that some of the
prosecution witnesses had turned hostile before the Court, he
categorically stated that those witnesses had, in their
statements recorded during investigation, fully supported the
prosecution case.
P.W.1 Victim is the informant herself. There is major
contradiction in her written report and deposition. In her
written report, she has stated that there was yatra mela at
Panjania on 30.01.1998. Azad Mian started following her from
the fair itself and followed her to Tola (Mohalla) and
suddenly, he caught hold of her and took her towards the
fields and raped her forcibly. When she started shouting, he
tried to kill her and broke her leg. After some time, she fainted
and her husband took her home.
While in her deposition before the Court, she has stated
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.640 of 2005 Page | 9
2026:JHHC:20742
that Azad Mian was roaming around the fair and offering her
laddus, she told her that she would not eat them. After the fair
ended, we were heading home. Her mother-in-law, father-in-
law and her husband were present at home. When she
returned from the fair, the door of the house was closed. She
called but the door did not open. When the door did not open,
she crossed the boundary wall with her little child and went
into the courtyard. When we crossed the boundary wall, Azad
Mian again asked us to eat laddus. Even after she arrived at
the new courtyard, her husband did not open the door. As she
was going back to the old courtyard, Azad Mian grabbed her
and threw her down and broken her leg and raped her. When
she started screaming, the family members opened the door,
came to her, picked her up and took her home. She further
stated that she told her in-laws and her husband about the
incident.
Defence has adduced the statement of the victim
recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. wherein she has
stated that Azad Ansari’s goat was grazing in my field. I had
taken his goat at her home. While searching for the goat, he
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.640 of 2005 Page | 10
2026:JHHC:20742
reached my house and asked if his goat had come? Then we
told him to give us as much fodder as the wheat she had
eaten. Then a fight broke out and after that he beat me and
broken my leg.
Although, she has denied in her deposition that no her
statement was recorded before Magistrate but taking
altogether her statement, there are many contradictions in her
statement.
14. From the aforesaid discussion of ocular testimony of
witnesses. It appears that except the informant (P.W.1), all
other witnesses of facts have derived their knowledge about
the occurrence from the informant himself and have not
supported the prosecution case. The contents of F.I.R., which
is based upon written report of the informant (P.W.1) clearly
goes to show that there is nothing abusive language used in
the name of caste of the informant. None of the prosecution
witnesses claimed to have witnessed the alleged wrongful
restraint or criminal trespass. P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W.8,
admittedly, reached the place only after the occurrence and
deposed merely on the basis of what they had heard. P.W.2,
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.640 of 2005 Page | 11
2026:JHHC:20742
P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 was declared hostile and did not
support the prosecution case on the material ingredients
constituting the offences under Sections 341 and 447 of the
IPC or Sections 3(xi) and 3(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The
Investigating Officer’s evidence regarding their previous
statements is only corroborative and cannot be treated as
substantive evidence to establish the guilt of the appellant.
15. In the statement recorded under Section 164 of the
Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix had categorically stated that goat of
the appellant grazed their based paddy crops and the
prosecutrix was insisting upon compensation about the
damages sustained due to grazing of paddy crops. In that
course some scuffle took place and the accused appellant
assaulted her causing fracture injury on her leg. It further
transpires that there is no allegation at all constituting the
offences under Sections 3(xi) and 3(xii) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
16. The provisions of Sections 3(xi) and 3(xii) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.640 of 2005 Page | 12
2026:JHHC:20742
Atrocities) Act reads as under :-
3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.–(1)
Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe,–
(i)-(x) ……
(xi) assaults or uses force to any woman belonging
to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe with
intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty ;
(xii) being in a position to dominate the will of a
woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe and uses that position to
exploit her sexually to which she would not
have otherwise agreed ;
Shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than six months but which may
extend to five years and with fine.
17. The learned Trial Court has misdirected himself
towards the testimony of witnesses and has not appreciated
the evidences in right perspective.
18. The judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Dashrath Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2024 SCC
Online SC 72 has held as under :-
9. We have gone through the FIR and the sworn testimony
of the prosecutrix/complainant as extracted in the
judgments of the High Court as well as that of the trial
Court. The case as projected in the FIR and the sworn
testimony of the prosecutrix would reveal that the
prosecutrix/complainant was engaged for doing household
jobs in the house of the accused appellant who tried to
outrage her modesty while the prosecutrix/complainant wasCr. Appeal (S.J.) No.640 of 2005 Page | 13
2026:JHHC:20742doing the household chores. Apparently thus, even from the
highest allegations of the prosecutrix, the offending act was
not committed by the accused with the intention that he was
doing so upon a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste.
This issue was dealt with by this Court in the case
of Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of
Maharashtra, (2000) 3 SCC 557, wherein it was held as
below:-
“9. Section 3(2)(v.) of the Act provides that whoever,
not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe, commits any offence under the
Penal Code, 1860 punishable with imprisonment for
a term of ten years or more against a person or
property on the ground that such person is a member
of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such
property belongs to such member, shall be punishable
with imprisonment for life and with fine. In the
present case, there is no evidence at all to the effect
that the appellant committed the offence alleged
against him on the ground that the deceased is a
member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.
To attract the provisions of Section 3(2)(v.) of the
Act, the sine qua non is that the victim should be a
person who belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe and that the offence under the
Penal Code, 1860 is committed against him on
the basis that such a person belongs to a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. In the
absence of such ingredients, no offence under Section
3(2)(v.) of the Act arises. In that view of the matter,
we think, both the trial court and the High Court
missed the essence of this aspect. In these
circumstances, the conviction under the aforesaid
provision by the trial court as well as by the High
Court ought to be set aside.”
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.640 of 2005 Page | 14
2026:JHHC:20742
(Emphasis supplied)
10. In the said judgment, this Court dealt with a case
involving offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
The language of Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act is pari
materia as the same also provides that the offence must be
committed upon a person belonging to Scheduled Castes or
Scheduled Tribes with the intention that it was being done on
the ground of caste.
11. Considered in light of the above factual and legal
position, we are of the opinion that the conviction of the
accused appellant for the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the
SC/ST Act was otherwise also not sustainable on merits.”
19. The appellant has already been acquitted from the
charge under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and even not convicted
under Section 354 of the I.P.C. On overall appreciation of
evidences, it is evident that no insult or intimidate with an
intent to humiliate the member of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes is there. Therefore, his conviction for
offences under Sections 3(xi) and 3(xii) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is
not justified under law.
20. In view of the above, I find merits in this appeal,
accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order
of sentence of the appellant is, hereby, set aside and the
appellant is acquitted from the charges leveled against him
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.640 of 2005 Page | 15
2026:JHHC:20742
and this appeal is allowed.
21. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
22. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record
be sent back to the concerned trial court for information and
needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated: 10/07/2026
Sachin / NAFR
Uploaded On: 14/07/2026
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.640 of 2005 Page | 16
