A Division Bench of Justice Ananda Sen and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava was hearing appeals against the judgment of conviction dated 23.08.2018 and order of sentence dated 29.08.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-X-cum-FTC, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum. The appellants had been sentenced to 20 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.40,000/- each.

As per the prosecution case, on 05.11.2013, the prosecutrix was travelling from her matrimonial home to her parental home when, near APO Tola-Jerka-Amda Pahari in the Lapit Chhencha Forest, the four accused allegedly surrounded her, caught hold of her and took her towards a drain, where they committed rape upon her one after another. Her mouth was gagged and she was threatened with being drowned if she raised an alarm.

The accused fled after sounds of movement were heard nearby. The prosecutrix thereafter raised an alarm and was taken to the house of Prakash Hembram, P.W.1, where she stayed overnight. A village Panchayat was convened the next day, but the accused did not attend, following which the FIR was lodged on 08.11.2013.

The Court accepted the prosecutrix's explanation for the three-day delay, noting that she was an illiterate widow from a village where a Panchayat was convened before approaching the police. It also noted that she first came to know the names of the accused during the Panchayat.

The defence also sought to discredit her testimony on the ground that she could not identify the accused by name. The Court rejected this contention, noting that she had identified them by their faces in court. The medical evidence further corroborated her version. The Court noted that the prosecutrix had suffered injuries to her back, breast, wrist and leg, with the medical examination recording marks of violence.

On the absence of sperm, the Court noted that the prosecutrix was around 50 years old and that there was a gap of 72 hours between the incident and her medical examination. It therefore held that the “non-detection of sperm is natural phenomena”, while observing that:

“…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...”

The Court also rejected the defence suggestion that the prosecutrix had falsely implicated the accused, noting that no oral or documentary evidence had been produced to substantiate the defence. The Court ultimately found the prosecutrix to be a reliable witness and held that the trial court had committed no error in convicting the appellants for gang rape.

The appeals were accordingly dismissed.

Appearance:

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]