CHAMU PURTY ALIAS SINGRAY PURTY vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

2026:JHHC:31380-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 644 of 2019
------
( Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.03.2019
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III-cum-Addl. Special Judge
(POCSO Act), West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Special Case (POCSO) No. 38 of
2015 arising out of Muffasil (Chaibasa) P.S. Case No. 117 of 2015 corresponding
to G.R. No. 38 of 2015 .)
--------
Chamu Purty @ Singray Purty, Son of late Mangal Singh Purty, R/o.-
Village- Amray, P.O.–Chaibasa, P.S. – Muffasil (Chaibasa), District –
West Singhbhum, State-Jharkhand.
... ... Appellant(s)

Versus
The State of Jharkhand …… Respondent(s)
-------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
: SRI PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
--------
For the Appellant : Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, A.P.P.
--------
JUDGMENT
---
th
Dated: 27 October, 2026
By Court :-

We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant as well as learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The appellant in this appeal has challenged the judgment by
which he has been convicted for committing the offences under
Sections 376(2)(i) of the I.P.C. and Section 6 of the POCSO Act vide
judgment of conviction dated 30.03.2019 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-III-cum-Addl. Special Judge (POCSO
Act), West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Special Case (POCSO) No. 38
of 2015 arising out of Muffasil (Chaibasa) P.S. Case No. 117 of 2015
corresponding to G.R. No. 38 of 2015 and has been sentenced to
undergo R.I. for life alongwith the fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default
stipulation for the offence under Section 376 (2)(i) of the I.P.C. vide
order of sentence dated 30.03.2019.
3. The prosecution case is at the behest of PW-2, who is mother of

2026:JHHC:31380-DB

the victim. She states that as her marriage was not successful. She
after birth of her child (victim) was residing in her parents’ house. On
the fateful date, her daughter (victim) aged about 13 years was in the
house alone and the informant had gone for work. When she returned
at 6:00 P.M. in the evening, she saw her daughter lying on the floor
with blood stain. Blood was oozing out from her private parts. She
called Ward Member- Sarojini Purty. When she came, she saw blood
stain in the bed also. It was disclosed by the victim that this appellant
about 11:00 A.M., finding her alone in the house, came and committed
rape upon her. As such, she started bleeding.
4. On the aforesaid facts, F.I.R. Mufassil (Chaibasa) P.S. Case No.
117 of 2015 was instituted on 06.09.2015 for the offences under
Section 376 of the I.P.C. and Sections 4/6 of the POCSO Act.
5. The police, after investigation, filed charge-sheet against the
present accused for committing the offences under Section 376 of the
I.P.C. and Sections 4/6 of the POCSO Act.
6. As the appellant pleaded not guilty, the charge was framed
under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and Sections 4/6 of the POCSO Act.
7. After the appellant was put on trial, altogether 10 witnesses
were examined on behalf prosecution, who are as follows:-
1) PW-1: Victim/Prosecutrix
2) PW-2: Mother of the victim
3) PW-3: Sarojini Purty
4) PW-4: Somnath Purty
5) PW-5: Lanka Purty
6) PW-6: Ram Purty
7) PW-7: Lorens Purty
8) PW-8: Judiya Purty @ Saluka Purty
9) PW-9: Vijay Bhusan Minz (Investigating Officer)
10) PW-10: Dr. Vinod Kumar Pandit
2
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 644 of 2019

2026:JHHC:31380-DB

8. Apart from above oral evidence, prosecution has also adduced
following documentary evidence:-

i. Ext.-1: Signature of victim on statement under Section
164 of Cr.P.C.
ii. Ext.-2: Signature of informant (PW-2) on fardbeyan.
iii. Ext.-2/1: Signature of PW-3 on fardbeyan.
iv. Ext.-2/2: Signature of PW-4 on fardbeyan.
v. Ext.-2/3: Fardbeyan.
vi. Ext.-3: Signature of PW-4 in seizure list.
vii. Ext.-3/1: Seizure list.
viii. Ext.-4: F.I.R.
ix. Ext.-5: Medical examination report.
x. Ext.-6: Statement recorded under Section 164 of the
Cr.P.C. of the victim
9. After closure of the evidence, the statement of the appellant was
recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. but thereafter the appellant
did not produce any witness in defence.
10. The learned Trial Court, after evaluating oral as well as
documentary evidence, found the appellant guilty for the offence
punishable under Section 376(2)(i) of the I.P.C. and Section 6 of the
POCSO Act and sentenced him accordingly as stated above.
11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
submits that all the witnesses are hearsay except the victim (PW-1)
and mother of the victim (PW-2). The doctor, who has been examined
as PW-10 has neither ascertained the exact time of occurrence nor he
has sent the cloths of the victim for examination. The doctor has also
not recorded the statement of the victim at the time of her medical
examination. He further submits that there is no any report with regard
to the fact that as to how many days the victim was admitted in the
hospital. Learned counsel on behalf of the appellant lastly submits that
3
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 644 of 2019

2026:JHHC:31380-DB

the statement of the victim is not believable as she has not screamed
or raised alarm considering the nature of offence, which was
perpetrated upon her. She has also not disclosed about the occurrence
to anyone but only to the mother, after she returned home.
12. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposes the
prayer of the appellant and submits that all the prosecution witnesses
have supported the prosecution case. The statement of victim inspires
confidence and unblemished. This appellant, finding the victim alone
in the house, committed rape upon the victim girl, who is minor aged
abut 11-12 years. PW-10 Dr. Vinod Kumar Pandit, who examined the
victim girl, has also supported the factum of rape committed upon the
victim. Hence, finds that there is nothing on record to suggest that the
victim has created a story and falsely implicated the appellant in this
case. It is her contention that the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is
sufficient in this case as it inspires confidence and trustworthy. He
further submits that non-recording of statement of victim by the
doctor at the time of her examination not worth to disprove the
testimony of victim.
13. It is well settled principle of law that in a case under section
376 of the I.P.C., if the statement of the victim inspires confidence and
is unblemished, on sole testimony of the victim, the accused can be
punished.
In the case of “ Krishan Kumar Malik vs. State of Haryana ,
as reported in (2011) 7 SCC 130 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that to
hold an accused guilty for commission of an offence of rape, the
solitary evidence of prosecutrix is sufficient, provided the same
inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy,
unblemished and should be of sterling quality.
14. In the instant case, the occurrence had taken place inside the
house of the victim. Admittedly, at the relevant point of time, except
4
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 644 of 2019

2026:JHHC:31380-DB

victim, no one was there in the house, as the victim has stated that her
mother had gone to work. Her mother also supports the aforesaid
statement.
15. The victim in this case is PW-1. She in her deposition, has
stated that she was alone in the house when this appellant came and
removed her pants and committed rape upon her, as a result of which,
she started bleeding. She has also stated that she felt dizziness. She
further stated that when her mother came at 6 o'clock in the evening,
she narrated how she was subjected to sexual assault by this appellant.
She also stated that she was taken to the sadar hospital, where she was
treated. She admitted that her statement under Section 164 of the
Cr.P.C. was recorded.
In her cross-examination, she has stated that her mother had
handed over the blood stained clothes to the police. Further, in her
cross-examination, not a single material in respect to disprove or
discredit the testimony of this witness was extracted.
This witness stood firm and could not be shaken by the defence.
PW-2 is mother of the victim, who has stated that when she
return from work, she saw her child (victim) lying in pool of blood.
Blood was oozing out from her private parts and wearing apparels
were wrenched with blood. The victim narrated that it is this
appellant, finding her alone, has committed rape upon her. Thereafter,
she was taken to the hospital.
In her cross-examination, she clearly admits what all her
daughter had narrated to her, she has narrated in Court. She has further
admitted that she has given the pant of her daughter to the police. She
has also admitted that she has signed on the documents in the police
station and denies the fact that she has falsely implicated the accused.
Her evidence also inspires confidence and there is nothing in
her testimony to discredit this witness.
5
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 644 of 2019

2026:JHHC:31380-DB

The most important witness is PW-10 Dr. Binod Kumar
Pandit. He has examined the victim and found lacerated wound on
outer part of vagina and on perineal area. It is necessary to quote the
injury which was found by the doctor on examination of victim, which
is as under:-
General Examination:- Height: 4',1". Weight: 23 Kgs. Teeth: 7=7/7,
14/14=28. Secondary Sexual Character: Axillary pubic mammary
gland no developed.
Mark of identification:-
1) 3" long wound mark on the dorsem of left forearm.
2) 1 & 1/2" long old wound mark on the dorsem of right forearm.
Examination of Private Parts and other part of body:-
1) Lacerated wound on outer part of vagina and on perineal area-
irregular in shape, size 2" x 1/2" x 1" deep wound margin- red
odematous and tender on touch. Clotted blood and dried up blood
present in the wound bed and outside wound area. Blood stain
present around private part and on inner side of thigh. Blood stain
present on cloths handed over to female police on foreign hair
found in private parts.
Age of injury: more than 6 hours but within 72 hours.
Nature of Injury :- Grievous in nature and may be dangerous to
her life, if medical treatment would have not been provided in
time to her.
2) No any other external injury observed on her body except injury to
her private part.
3) Pathology report: a) No spermatozoa found dead or alive. b) Pus
cells- 15 to 20 per HPF-epithelial cells 2+ RBC 60 to 70 bacteria
2+.
4) Radiological findings: i) Epiphysis yet not united with their respect
shafts at left elbow and knee joint but all carpal are ossified.
6
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 644 of 2019

2026:JHHC:31380-DB

5) Opinion:
1. Age- 11-12 years Plus Minus 01 year.

2. Forceful penetration of vagina has been tried leading to perineal
tear with bleeding.
The doctor has opined that age of the victim is 11-12 years and
there is forceful penetration of vagina which led to perinea tear with
bleeding. He also opined that the injury was grievous in nature may be
dangerous to life if medical treatment would not have been provided
to her on time. Nothing much has been extract in his cross
examination except the fact that doctor has not recorded the statement
of the victim and the exact time of the injury has not been mentioned.
These matters are absolutely irrelevant for the purpose of this case as
the doctor is not the appropriate person to record the statement of
victim and non-recording of victim's statement by the doctor is not
fatal.
The report of the doctor clearly suggests that the victim, who
was ravished and sexually assaulted which led to grievous injury on
her private parts. The doctor's report also corroborate with the
statements of PW-1 (victim) and PW-2 (mother of the victim).
The Investigating Officer , who is PW-9, has proved the F.I.R.
and the place of occurrence. He has also admitted that the mother of
the victim (PW-2) had handed over to him the pant of the victim. He
visited the place of occurrence and found blood stains on the floor.
Though, he has stated that he has neither seized the mat, where the
victim was sleeping nor has sent the wearing apparel for FSL but
admitted the fact that he has seized the wearing apparels and prepared
its seizure list. This corroborates the statement of mother of the victim
that she had handed over the wearing apparel, the pant, to him.
PW-3 Sarojini Purty is Ward Member, where the victim
resides. She states that on the date of occurrence, mother of the victim
7
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 644 of 2019

2026:JHHC:31380-DB

called her in her house in the evening and when she went there, she
saw the victim was soaked in blood. The victim told her that this
appellant committed rape upon her. Due to night, they did not do
anything but on the next day, she informed Village Munda and Police.
Police came and brought the victim to hospital.
PW-4 Somnath Purty is the village Munda. He has also gone
to the house of the victim and found that blood was oozing out from
private part of the victim. The victim told him that this appellant
committed rape upon her.
PW-5 Lanka Purty, PW-6 Ram Purty & PW-7 Lorens Purty
have supported the prosecution case and on the alleged date of
occurrence, this appellant has committed rape upon the victim.
Nothing specific has been extracted in their cross-examination
by the defence.
PW-8 Judiya Purty @ Saluka Purty has stated that
occurrence took place before three years. This appellant had
committed rape upon the victim and the accused was caught by
mother of the victim and her grandmother. A panchayati was also
held, where the accused had confessed his guilt.
16. In this case, medical evidence clearly supports the ocular
evidence and the testimony of the victim girl and mother was not
shaken and they have stood firm. Nothing has been brought by the
defence to discredit the prosecution evidence.
17. Further, from the examination of the appellant under Section
313 of Cr.P.C., we find that all the circumstances were put to him and
he has stereo type answered "allegations are false."
18. Considering what has been held above, we find that the
prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond
all reasonable doubt. Thus, the judgment of conviction and sentence
passed by the learned Trial Court need no interference.
8
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 644 of 2019

2026:JHHC:31380-DB

19. Accordingly, this criminal appeal stands dismissed.
20. Appellant is in custody. Let a copy of this judgment be
furnished forthwith to the appellants through learned A.P.P.
21. Let the copy of this judgment be sent to concerned Trial Court
for information and needful.
22. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands disposed of, accordingly.

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

(PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.)


High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
Dated: 27.10.2026
Rahul/NAFR
Uploaded on: 02/11/2026
9
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 644 of 2019