RAHMAN MIAN vs STATE OF JHARKHAND

2026:JHHC:26749

IN THE HIGH COURT OFJHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1058 of 2005
---------
[Against the judgment of conviction 02.08.2005 and sentence dated 03.08.2005
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Jamtara in Sessions Case
No. 78 of 2004 arising out of P.C.R. Case No. 238 of 2003.]
---------
Rahman Mian, Son of late Jarib Mian, Resident of Village- Koidiha, P.S.-
Narayanpur, District- Jamtara (Jharkhand).
……Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. X, through her husband Siddique Mian, R/o. vill.- Koidiha, P.S.
Narayanpur, Dist.- Jamtara.
…. Respondents
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Naveen Kr. Ganjhu, A.P.P.
-----------
PRESENT
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
-----------
th
CAV On: 24 August, 2026 Pronounced On: 31/08/2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.P.P.

2. Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of
conviction dated 02.08.2005 and sentence dated 03.08.2005 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Jamtara in Sessions Case No.
78 of 2004 arising out of P.C.R. Case No. 238 of 2003, whereby and
whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under
Section 376/511 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 years
alongwith the fine of Rs. 500/-with default stipulation.
Factual Matrix:-
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 31.07.2003 at
about 7:00 P.M., the victim was preparing her dinner for night. All of
sudden, the accused entered into the house of the victim and asked

2026:JHHC:26749

where about of her husband. She replied that her husband had gone
outside. The accused, after knowing that victim's husband is not there,
caught hold the victim from behind and put her down and thereafter, he
forcibly tried to commit rape on her. When the victim tried to raise
alarm, the accused assaulted her by fists and slaps and took out a tangi
of dire consequences. In the meantime, father-in-law of the victim and
other witnesses came there and saved the victim. The accused fled away
after seeing the witnesses coming there to rescue her. On next morning,
for the aforesaid occurrence, the victim lodged written information
before police against the accused and the police assured the victim to
start substantive criminal case. The police did not institute the case. On
11.08.2003, she submitted an application before the S.P., Jamtara
regarding non-institution of the case by police but no action was taken.
4. Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint before the Court being
P.C.R. Case No. 237 of 2003 on 21.08.2003. After taking cognizance of
the case, the Court issued summon to the accused under Section
376/511 of the I.P.C.

5. The accused appeared to the summons and contested the case
before the learned Trial Court.
6. In the course of trial, altogether six witnesses have been examined
by the prosecution and Ext.1 as documentary evidence has been
examined.
7. On the other hand, defence has also examined one witness, namely,
DW-1 Dubraj Prasad Rai, who has proved the signature and writing of
Kishori Chowdhary, the then Munshi of Narayanpur P.S., on the report
2 | P a g e

2026:JHHC:26749

submitted to the officer in-charge of Narayanpur Police Station in the
case of victim marked Ext.- A & A/1.
8. As such, the case of defence is denial from the occurrence and false
implication due to dispute had arisen over the cutting of ridge in the
field for water irrigation and prosecution wanted to grab the land of
accused, so with intention to putting pressure upon the accuse, he has
been falsely implicated.

9. The learned Trial Court after scrutinizing the evidence oral as well
as documentary led by the respective parties, arrived at definite
conclusion about the guilt of the appellant for the offence under Section
376/511 of the I.P.C. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court convicted
and sentenced the appellant as stated above, which has been assailed in
this appeal.
Submission on behalf of appellant:-
10. Assailing the impugned judgment, the learned counsel for the
appellant has submitted that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated
properly the earliest version of the victim stated in her written report,
which was submitted before the police station on 01.08.2003. The
learned Trial Court has only appreciated the complaint petition filed
before the Court and arrived at conclusion under Section 376/511
against the appellant. It is further submitted that on perusal of the
written report filed before the police station, wherein, the victim lady
has alleged the date of occurrence to be on 31.07.2003 at about 4:00
P.M. and has made allegation that there is dispute with regard to the
cutting of ridge in the field for water irrigation, whereas, on perusal of
the complaint petition filed before the Court also suggested the date of
3 | P a g e

2026:JHHC:26749

occurrence to be 31.07.2003 with allegation of the attempt to commit
rape and she reported to the police station on 01.08.2003 but in her
report submitted to the police, there is no whisper about the attempt to
commit rape on her, which is totally contradictory statement and it
proved to be false allegation has been levelled against the accused in the
complaint petition. The complaint petition has been filed on 21.08.2003,
which also reveals that there is delay of 20 days from the date of
occurrence. It is further submitted that there are many contradictions in
the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. It is also submitted that
appellant has falsely been implicated in this case with a view to take
revenge from him due to prior enmity existing between both the parties
for last many years. It is also submitted that the entire body of
prosecution witnesses consists of person who are either closely related
to the complainant or who have independent, admitted cross-litigation
and disputes. Therefore, conviction and sentence of the appellant is
liable to be set aside and this appeal may be allowed.
Submission on behalf of State:-
11. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised by
learned counsel for the appellant and defending the impugned judgment
has submitted that the learned Trial Court has very wisely and aptly
scrutinized the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The plea of delay
in lodging F.I.R. has sufficiently been explained by the prosecution. It is
further submitted that the appellant in preplanned way, after taking
advantage of the absence of the husband of the victim, attempted to
commit rape on the victim. In the meantime, father-in-law of the victim
and other witnesses came there and saved her. Therefore, there is no
4 | P a g e

2026:JHHC:26749

illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and
sentence of the appellant calling for any interference in this appeal,
which is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed.
Analysis, Reasons and Decision:-
12. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned
judgment and order in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of
both side.

13. The only point for consideration of this appeal is, as to whether the
impugned judgment of conviction and sentence suffers from any serious
error or law calling for any interference or not?
14. Before adjudicating the above point, it is pertinent to apprise with
the testimony of the witnesses examined during trial.
15. The most important witness in this case is the prosecutrix (victim) ,
who has been examined as PW-4. According to her evidence, on date of
occurrence at about 7:00 P.M., she was burning the woven to prepare
dinner. Her husband had gone to Dhanbad and father-in-law Ami Mian
(PW-2) was grazing cattle. Her son had gone for wood cutting.
Suddenly, the accused came to her house and asked where about of her
husband and she replied, "he has gone to dhanbad." Thereafter, the
accused fell her down with an intention to rape her. She raised halla but
the accused gagged her mouth and threatened to kill by tangi. The
accused tried to commit rape but on alarm Rafique Mian (PW-5), Amin
Mian (PW-2), Wasir Mian (PW-3), Chutu Mian (PW-1) arrived there.
She was siting naked at that time. The accused fled away. These persons
gave clothes to her and she covered her body. She stated about the
occurrence to her father-in-law and other witnesses. She has further
5 | P a g e

2026:JHHC:26749

stated that the accused was chasing her for last two year with a view to
defame her. She has further deposed that she went to the police station
with her father-in-law and others. She made statement before police and
police assured to lodge a case but police office did not lodge the case.
She went the S.P. but nothing happened. Thereafter, she filed the case in
the court.
In her cross-examination, she has stated that she was married 20
years ago. She has four sons and two daughters. Her father-in-law is
Amin Mian. She has denied that she had filed a rape case against her
father-in-law. Her father Suleman Mian resides in the same village and
he lives at a distance of 3-4 houses from her sasural. She has denied the
knowledge of institution of a case against the accused by her father-in-
law when the accused was constructing a house on plot no. 9. She
further states in her cross-examination that the accused left the tangi
there. She again states that Rafique Mian, Wasir Mian, Amin Mian and
Chutu Mina took out tangi from the accused. In a Court question that
these people have caught the accused. She replies that after catching the
accused they took out the tangi and then the accused fled away. She has
denied that no such occurrence has taken place rather there was a
dispute over the matter of water in the field.
PW-1 Chotu Mian @ Chutu Mian has seen the accused with
tangi in his hand and he had saved the victim. At first, this witness came
there and also raised alarm then other witnesses came there. Husband of
the victim had gone to Dhanbad. When police officer did not do
anything, then she filed case in court.
6 | P a g e

2026:JHHC:26749

In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he has seen the
accused naked and his clothes were left in the house of victim and the
accused fled away naked. This witness admits that his brother Islam
Mian had filed a case earlier against the accused under Section 436
I.P.C., which was false case verified by Dy.S.P. This witness further
expresses no knowledge about a case lodged by his father against the
accused.
PW-2 Amin Mian has stated that he was gazing the cattle. Rafique
was also there with him. His daughter-in-law was alone in the house.
She was preparing food. On hearing hulla, he went to the house. The
door was open and the accused was inside the house. The accused tried
to commit rape by tearing cloths. Cloth of the accused was also open.
He further states that on seeing him, the accused took out tangi and said,
"he would kill him don't raise alarm". When other witness went with
him, then the accused fled inside a makka-field.
In his cross-examination, this witness states that the accused is his
nephew. He admits that this witness and the family of accused are in
litigating terms with regard to land dispute. He further admits that he
had given an application to the police station when the accused was
building his house at plot no. 9. He further admits that his son Sidique
Mian had filed a police case against brother of the accused. This witness
further states in his cross examination that victim has four sons and two
girls. Marriage of the elder son of the victim has also been solemnized
one and half years before.
PW-3 Wasir Mian was on the way to shop at the time of
occurrence. He heard sound from the house of victim and went there and
7 | P a g e

2026:JHHC:26749

saw Rafique Mian (PW-5) and Chotu Mian (PW-1). The victim was
sitting and weeping and there was not cloth on her body. On quarry, she
told that the accused tried to rape her. At that time, the accused had gone
from the house but he had seen him going out. The accused had wrapped
his lungi and there was an axe in his hand.
In his cross examination, he admits that the accused had a dispute
with brother of this witness and Hannan Mian had filed a case under
Section 307 I.P.C. against him. He further states that there are 10-12
houses between the house of the accused and the victim.
PW-5 Rafique Mian has stated in deposition that on hearing sound
of save-save, he alongwith Amin Mian (PW-2) went there. Chotu Mian
(PW-1) and Wasir Mian (PW-3) also went there. Door was open. He
saw that there was scuffle between the victim and the accused. The
blouse of the victim was torn. He saw that the accused escaped with
catching hold of his lungi by one hand and an axe by another hand. The
victim told that the accused came and asked where about her husband
and when she told that her husband had gone to Dhanbad, he wanted to
commit rape on her.
In his cross-examination, this witness states that before the enquiry
officer, he has stated that he reached the place of occurrence before
Amin Mian (2), father in law of the victim. Amin Mian is the brother of
this witness. He denies the suggestion of defence that daughter of Amin
Mian had filed a case against him rather there was dispute for money
transaction. This witness also admits that there was disputed between
father in law of the victim and the accused.
8 | P a g e

2026:JHHC:26749

PW-6 Byomkesh Padern has proved the complaint petition drafted
by Surujeet Mukherjee, advocate and signed by him on each page.
Complaint petitioner is marked Ext.-1.
16. On the other hand, the case of defence is denial from the occurrence
and one witness has also been examined on behalf of the defence.
DW-1 Dubraj Pd. Rai has proved the certified copy of written report
and the alleged incident dated 31.07.2003 at about 4:00 P.M. lodged
before the officer in-charge, Narayanpur police station, which is marked
Ext.-A and the endorsement for enquiry and necessary action made by
A.S.I. Shashi Kr. Singh as Ext.- A/1.
17. I have given anxious consideration to the overall aspects of the case
and the documentary evidence available on record.
18. It appears that complaint case no. 238 of 2003 was instituted before
the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara on 21.08.2003,
wherein, it is specifically stated by the complainant that on 31.07.2003
at about 7:00 P.M., complainant was preparing for cooking night meal,
then the present appellant visited her house and finding her alone,
inquired about her husband and when she told that he has gone to
Dhanbad, then the accused caught hold of her, thrashed her on ground
and forcibly tried to commit rape on her after removing he saree and
saya. When the complainant raised alarm for rescue, she was assaulted
by fist and slaps and also threatened to kill by taking out a tangi kept in
the house of the complainant. The accused after removing her saree and
saya and tearing her blouse, wanted to penetrate his male organ on the
private part of the complainant with a view to commit rape. Merely, on
her raising alarm, her father-in-law Amin Mian (PW-2) and other
9 | P a g e

2026:JHHC:26749

witnesses arrived and saved her. The complainant in her deposition as
PW-4 has simply stated that the accused thrashed her on ground and
removed her clothes and forcibly attempted to commit rape with her,
wherein, her father in law and other witnesses arrived there on her
raising alarm. She was sitting in naked condition and the accused fled
away. She also admits that she went to lodge the case at police station
alongwith her father in law and she also reported at the police station
and the police officer assured her that case will be lodged and proceeded
but no action was taken, then she went to the Superintendent of police
but no action was taken there also, then she lodged the complaint case.
19. At this juncture, it is relevant to discuss the contents of Ext.-A,
which has been exhibited without objection and also admitted by the
complainant that she lodged the written report before the police station,
which goes to show that on 31.07.2003 at about 4:00 P.M., she was
taking water by cutting ridge of field of the accused Rahman Mian for
irrigating her own field for plantation of paddy crop. In the meantime,
Rahman Mian arrived and started abusing her in filthy language and
forbade her from cutting the ridge and taking water from his field. She
told that she has to plant paddy crop and there is deficiency of water in
her field but the accused closed the ridge and stopped water flowing in
her field and also abused in filthy language and threatened her, then she
came back to her home and complained to her father in law about the
incident.
20. It is quite obvious that the complaint case was lodged after 20 days
of the occurrence with allegation of attempt to rape with the
complainant by the present appellant. In her cross-examination, it is also
10 | P a g e

2026:JHHC:26749

apparent that complainant was married about 20 years ago prior to this
occurrence having four sons and two daughters. She also reiterates that
after lodging written report by her in the police station, police arrived at
her village and recorded her statement but no action was taken against
the accused. She also admits inimical terms between the father in law
and the accused at the time of construction of home by the accused. The
content of complaint case was also dictated by her father in law as
admitted in her cross-examination. Admittedly, other witnesses arrived
at the place of occurrence when the accused managed to flee away and
the accused was only seen of fleeing away by rest of the witnesses.
21. It further transpires that the learned Trial Court has heavily relied
upon the testimony of the complainant as a basis of conviction of the
appellant. There is no doubt that sole testimony of prosecutrix can be
made basis in complaint of offence of rape when she appears to be
wholly reliable and her testimony does not suffer from any blemish or
otherwise doubtful.
22. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Krishna Kumar Malik vs.
State of Haryana (2011) 7 SCC 130 , it is observed and held by
Hon'ble Apex Court that no doubt, it is true that to hold an accused
guilty for commission of an offence of rape, the solitary evidence of the
prosecutrix is sufficient provided the same inspires confidence and
appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of
sterling quality.
23. In the instant case, the genesis of the occurrence is dispute about
irrigation of field by cutting ridge of the field of the appellant. Initially,
the written report (Ext.-A) was lodged by the complainant without
11 | P a g e

2026:JHHC:26749

whispering about any attempt of commission of rape with her at the
instance of accused rather some altercation took place due to stoppage
of water and closing the ridge of the field of the accused by him and
consequential abusive words. The complaint was lodged on dictation of
father in law of the complainant with legal frame as per advice of
advocate, wherein the whole spectrum was materially changed not only
this but the complainant has also exaggerated the event in her testimony
before Court by stating the manner in which the accused attempted to
commit rape with her overpowering her at house by tangi. Therefore,
her evidence appears to be in consistent with chain of circumstances of
this case rather her testimony appears to be tainted with false in order to
implicate the appellant for a serious offence. Therefore, the manner in
which the occurrence is said to have occurred is not believable at all.
24. In view of above background of the case, the solitary testimony of
prosecutrix cannot be given any credence and believed to be gospel
truth without any independent supporting evidence.
25. It appears that the learned Trial Court has committed serious error
of law while believing the testimony of prosecutrix, which suffers from
material contradiction and infirmity from the very inception. Therefore,
there is no reason to sustain the conviction and sentence imposed upon
the appellant by the learned Trial Court.
26. In view of the above discussion and reasons, the impugned
judgment of conviction and sentence passed upon the appellant is
hereby set aside.
27. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed .
28. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands disposed of.
12 | P a g e

2026:JHHC:26749

29. The appellant is on bail. He is discharged from the liability of bail
bond and sureties are also discharged.
30. Let a copy of this judgment alongwith the trial Court records be
sent back immediately to the concerned Trial Court for information and
needful.

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
Dated: 31/08/2026
Rahul- NAFR
Uploaded On: 03/09/2026
13 | P a g e