VIJAY SAO vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

2026:JHHC:14107
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.419 of 2019
---------
[Against the Judgment of conviction dated 15.03.2019 and
Order of sentence dated 19.03.2019, passed by the learned
st
Additional Sessions Judge - 1 , Hazaribag in Sessions Trial
No.292 of 2010, arising out of Sadar (Muffasil) P.S. Case
No.295 of 2010 , corresponding to G.R No.1255 of 2010]
---------

Vijay Sao, aged 41 years, S/o Late Hiraman Sao @ Barun
Sao, Resident of Village – Silwar, P.S – Muffasil, P.O &
District – Hazaribag. ….. Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
---------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. Awnish Shankar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Naveen Kr. Ganjhu, A.P.P
---------
th
Order No.05/ Dated: 11 May, 2026
1. Heard Mr. Awnish Shankar, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Naveen Kumar Ganjhu, learned counsel
for the State.
2. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment of
conviction dated 15.03.2019 and order of sentence dated
19.03.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions
st
Judge - 1 , Hazaribag, in Sessions Trial No.292 of 2010,
arising out of Sadar (Muffasil) P.S. Case No.295 of 2010
(G.R. No.1255 of 2010), whereby the appellant has been
convicted for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian
Penal code (in short IPC) and has been sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of
Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) and in default of fine, further
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
- 1 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.419 of 2019

2026:JHHC:14107
3. The prosecution story, in short, is based on the written
application of the informant-cum-victim, (P.W.5), alleging
therein that Vijay Sao s/o Hiraman Sao @ Barun Sao of
village Silwar, P.S Muffasil, District -Hazaibag is sexually
exploiting her for the last three years on the false pretext of
marriage and when she told to marry with her, he is
refusing. Further, it has been alleged that the accused kept
her in a tenanted house at Maheshra on the rent of Rs.200/-
per month and used to expend on her as his wife. Further
alleged that under the pressure of his parents, he refused to
marry with her.
On the basis of above information of the victim, Sadar
(Muffasil) P.S Case No.295 of 2010 dated 23.04.2010 has
been registered under Sections 376 IPC, against the
accused-appellant and the police, after completing the
investigation, has submitted the charge-sheet under Section
376 IPC and the trial court has framed the charge on
19.08.2010 under Sections 376 IPC against the present
appellant. Thereafter, the case has been committed to the
court of Sessions to which the appellant has pleaded
innocence and claimed to be tried and accordingly, the trial
has commenced.
4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has
examined altogether 06 witnesses and their depositions, in
short, are as follows:-
5. P.W.-1, Dr. R. S. Vandana, is the doctor who has
examined the victim and proved the medical report i.e. Ext.-
1. She has assessed the age of the victim more than 20
- 2 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.419 of 2019

2026:JHHC:14107
years. No any external injury was found, hence opinion
about rape cannot be given.
In cross-examination, she has admitted that the victim
was habitual of sexual intercourse.
6. P.W.-2, Krishna Yadav, is an independent witness in
in chief, he has deposed that on refusal of marriage, the
victim has filed the case.
7. P.W.-3, Kuldip Sao, is the father of the victim and he
has stated in his chief examination that his daughter was
aged about 16-17 years and the accused has taken her on
false pretext of marriage and on refusal by the accused and
his parents, the case was lodged.
In cross-examination, he has admitted that his
daughter was earlier married and out of the said wedlock
two children was born. In para – 6, he has deposed that it is
not a fact that his daughter has filed this false case and the
accused has not done anything wrong.
8. P.W.-4, Khirodhar Sao, is also an independent
witness. He has stated that in panchayati , the accused was
directed to marry the victim, but on refusal the case was
lodged by the victim.
In cross-examination, at para-4, he has deposed that
the informant is residing with her children at Maheshra and
used to work for her livelihood. In para-5, he had deposed
that police has not taken his statement.
9. P.W.-5, xxxxxx is the informant/ victim herself. She
has supported the case and identified the written report
(Ext.-2).
- 3 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.419 of 2019

2026:JHHC:14107
In cross-examination, she has admitted that she was
earlier married to one Sunil about ten years ago and out of
the said wedlock two children were born. In para-3, she has
deposed that she left the home of Sunil as he started making
demand of dowry. In para-6, she has admitted that the
accused is her mausha in distant relationship and as per
statement in para-7, she went with him with the consent of
her parents.
10. P.W.-6, Yadunath Singh, is the Investigating Officer
of the case. He has recorded the statement of the witnesses
as well as of the informant.
In cross-examination, he has admitted that the written
report was not filed in his presence.
11. The accused, in his defence, has brought some
documentary evidence on record, which have been
exhibited, which are as follows :-
1. Ext.-A – Certified copy of six depositions.
2. Ext.-B – Certified copy of order-sheets of
Complaint Case No.290 of 2010.
3. Ext.-C – Certified copy of order-sheets of
Maintenance Case No.47 of 2015.
4. Ext.-D – Certified copy of order-sheets dated
30.01.2009 to 07.07.2011 of MTS
Case No.26 of 2009.
5. Ext.-E – Certified copy of petition of MTS
No.26 of 2009.
6. Ext.-F – Certified copy of maintenance
petition and objection of
Maintenance Case No.47 of 2015.
7. Ext.-G – Certified copy of Complaint Case
No.290 of 2010.
Exts.- B to F are regarding the first marriage of the
victim.
12. On consideration of above materials on record, the
trial Court has found the appellant guilty for the offence
- 4 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.419 of 2019

2026:JHHC:14107
under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him, as stated above.
13. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of
conviction, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from
perusal of record, it appears that :-
(i) the victim has admitted that she is a
married lady having two children from her first
marriage.
(ii) there was no divorce from her first
husband, as has been stated by her which is also
evident from Exts.- D & F.
(iii) the victim and the accused have remained
as wife-husband for more than three years and only
on refusal of marriage by the accused, the present
case has been lodged by the victim.
(iv) both, the accused and the victim are major.
(v) for conviction under Section 376 IPC, it is
sine qua non that the physical relationship must be
established without consent of the victim or the
consent has been obtained by playing fraud.
15. In the present case, as per the allegation, the consent
has been obtained on false pretext of marriage which cannot
be justified, as she was already married having two
children. The divorce petition was filed, but the same has
not been culminated in divorce. They have remained as a
husband and wife for a long period and their relationship
was consensual and only after refusal of marriage, the
present case has been filed by the victim.
- 5 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.419 of 2019

2026:JHHC:14107
16. There was long consensual relationship between the
parties and only since it has not been culminated into
marriage, the present case has been lodged.
17. Thus, it is not a case where the consent has been
obtained by playing fraud. Both the parties are major and
have remained in long consensual relationship.
18. In view of above discussions, this Court finds that the
basic ingredient of Section 376 IPC is missing and as such
the conviction of the appellant under Section 376 IPC is not
sustainable. Accordingly, the Judgment of conviction dated
15.03.2019 and order of sentence dated 19.03.2019, passed
st
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - 1 , Hazaribag, in
Sessions Trial No.292 of 2010, arising out of Sadar
(Muffasil) P.S. Case No.295 of 2010 (G.R. No.1255 of 2010
is, hereby, quashed and set aside.
19. In the result, the appeal stands allowed and
accordingly disposed of.
20. The appellant is on bail, hence, he is discharged from
the liability of bail bond.
21. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court
concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgment .
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
th
Dated, the 11 May, 2026
Ravi-Chandan /-
NAFR
Uploaded on 13.05.2026
- 6 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.419 of 2019