RAJ KUMAR PRADHAN vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

2026:JHHC:14638
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.477 of 2019
---------
[Against the Judgment of conviction dated 27.02.2019 and
Order of sentence dated 28.02.2019, passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge – I, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa
in Sessions Trial No.128 of 2015, arising out of Toklo
(Chakradharpur) P.S. Case No.100 of 2014]
---------

Raj Kumar Pradhan aged about 44 years son of late Dwarika
Pradhan, resident of Aruwa, P.O. & P.S. Toklo, District – West
Singhbhum at Chaibasa. ….. Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
---------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. N. K. Sahani, Advocate
Mr. G. K. Dungdung, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P
---------
th
Order No.07/ Dated: 13 May, 2026
1. Heard Mr. G. K. Dungdung, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned counsel for the
State
2. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment
of conviction dated 27.02.2019 and order of sentence dated
28.02.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge – I, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial
No.128 of 2015, arising out of Toklo (Chakradharpur) P.S.
Case No.100 of 2014, whereby the appellant has been
convicted for the offence under Sections 376/ 417 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC) and has been sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of
Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) with default clause for the
- 1 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.477 of 2019

2026:JHHC:14638
offence under Section 376 IPC and rigorous imprisonment
for one year for the offence under Section 417 IPC. Both
the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. The criminal law has been put into motion by lodging
an F.I.R being Toklo (Chakradharpur) P.S. Case No.100 of
2014 against the present appellant under Section 376 of
the Indian Penal Code, on the basis of the complaint
petition filed by the prosecutrix on 13.09.2014 being C/1
Case No.34 of 2014 in the court of learned SDJM, Porahat
at Chaibsasa.
Prosecution story, in short, is based on the complaint
petition of the prosecutrix (P.W.-9), wherein it has been
alleged that the appellant-accused had proposed the
prosecutrix for marriage and on that pretext, the
prosecutrix had walked away with the above named
accused from her home on 04.01.2014. But, the prosecutrix
was not taken by the above named accused to his home
rather she was kept in the house of one Jamuna Kui of
village Moradih, where the above named accused
committed rape with the prosecutrix for several times on
the assurance of marriage and whenever the prosecutrix
used to told the above named accused to take her to his
house, he always requested for time. After elapsing of a
period of about 02 months, the above named accused
stopped coming to the prosecutrix and hence, the said
Jamuna Kui took the prosecutrix to the house of above
named accused. But on seeing the prosecutrix, the above
- 2 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.477 of 2019

2026:JHHC:14638
named accused hide himself and sent his wife and daughter
to face the prosecutrix. Subsequently, on the pressure of
villagers, the above named accused kept the prosecutrix in
his home like a servant, though the above named accused
had made the prosecutrix to understood that she is the
wife of above named accused and on the said pretext, he
had continued having physical relationship with the
prosecutrix. The wife and daughter of the accused took all
the gold and silver ornaments of the prosecutrix like
necklace, sikka , mangtika , baju payal and an amount of
Rs.60,000/- also and whenever the prosecutrix asked them
to return the said ornaments and money, they used to
assault the prosecutrix with fist and blows. It has been
further stated that after being frustrated by the said
conduct of the accused, his wife and daughter, the
prosecutrix complained all the said facts to village Munda
on 05.06.2014, whereupon a panchayati was also called for.
In the said panchayati , it was decided by panches that as
the accused is not keeping the prosecutrix properly, the
matter should be reported to the police. Thereafter, the
prosecutrix went to the police station to lodge a case, but
she was suggested by the police officials to go to Court and
lodge a case, hence, a complaint petition was filed by the
prosecutrix being C/1 Case No.34 of 2014.
The police, after completing the investigation, has
submitted the charge-sheet on 31.03.2015 against the
present appellant under Section 376 IPC and the trial court
- 3 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.477 of 2019

2026:JHHC:14638
has framed the charge on 13.06.2016 under Sections 376/
417 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 12 witnesses and their depositions, in
short, are as follows:-
5. P.W.-1, Laxman Pradhan, is the Munda of the
village. He has stated that the prosecutrix is the sister-in-
law of the accused. He has stated that the victim was
residing with the accused in his home.
In cross-examination, he has stated that the
prosecutrix had never made any complaint to him
individually.
6. P.W.-2, Lalit Pradhan, has attended the panchayati
in which the accused was held responsible for committing
misdeeds.
In cross-examination, he has admitted that he cannot
say that the accused has committed any misdeed or not
and the victim happens to be 'Sali' of the accused. Further,
the victim has not made any complaint to him individually.
7. P.W.-3, Kripa Sindu Pradhan, is the nephew of the
accused. He has stated that the prosecutrix is sali of the
accused. He has also attended the panchayati .
In cross-examination, he deposed that he does not
know the subject matter of the panchayati .
- 4 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.477 of 2019

2026:JHHC:14638
8. P.W.-4, Jiten Pradhan, has identified the accused in
the court. He has denied the panchyati held in the village.
9. P.W.-5, Anand Pradaha, has been declared hostile.
10. P.W.-6, Ganga Sindhu Pradhan, has supported the
prosecution story. He has stated that the victim used to
visit the house of the accused.
In cross-examination, he deposed that he does not
know anything about the incident and appeared before the
court on notice.
11. P.W.-7, Sanyasi Pradahn, is the brother of the
accused. He has also no knowledge about panchayati held
in the matter.
In cross-examination, he deposed that he does not
know anything regarding the incident.
12. P.W.-8, Kailash Pradhan , is the nephew of the
accused. He has deposed that the victim used to visit the
house of the accused.
In cross-examination, he has denied the incident.
13. P.W.-9, XXXX , is the prosecutrix and she has
supported the case. She has stated that the accused told
her to come with him as he has three daughters only and
he has no male child. He will merry her and will give her
the status of wife. She has stated that as she was not given
the status of wife, she filed the complaint in the court.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that she has
not given any paper of ornaments and money to the police.
She has given the gold and silver as well as the money to
- 5 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.477 of 2019

2026:JHHC:14638
the accused on assurance that she will be kept well by the
accused.
14. P.W.-10, Binod Kumar Sing h, is the investigating
officer of the case. He has investigated the case and
recorded the statement of the victim.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that both the
parties were residing as husband-wife. The victim is aged
about 48 years.
15. P.W.-11, Parth Sarthi Ghosh , is the Judicial
Magistrate, who has proved the 164 Cr.P.C statement of the
victim (Ext.-4).
16. P.W.-12, Dr. Neeru Jha , is the doctor who has
examined the prosecutrix. She has not found any mark of
violence on the private part of the victim.
In cross-examination, she has admitted that she has
not taken the statement of the victim. She further deposed
that the victim is habitual to sexual intercourse.
17. On consideration of above materials on record, the
trial Court has found the appellant guilty for the offence
under Sections 376/ 417 IPC and sentenced him, as stated
above.
18. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of
conviction, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
19. Referring to the statement of the victim (P.W.-9), it
has been submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant that :-
(i) the victim is the sister-in-law ( sali ) of the
- 6 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.477 of 2019

2026:JHHC:14638
appellant-accused and she was aware regarding
the first marriage of the appellant and also the fact
that from the first marriage, this appellant has
been blessed with three daughters. The age of the
eldest daughter is around 20 years.
(ii) both the parties are major and they were
in long relationship and the relationship was
consensual. The allegation that it was on false
pretext of marriage, is wrong as the appellant was
already married and this fact was very well known
to the victim, because the first wife of the
appellant is the own sister of the victim.
(iii) the victim has clearly stated in her
deposition that she was living with the appellant as
a second wife and only after maltreatment, this
case has been lodged.
On the above basis, it has been submitted by the
learned counsel for the appellant that the offence under
Section 376 IPC is not made out.
20. So far as offence under Section 417 IPC is concerned,
the appellant has already remained in custody for about
four years and six months while the maximum punishment
prescribed under Section 417 IPC is one year
imprisonment.
21. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has
supported the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence.
- 7 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.477 of 2019

2026:JHHC:14638
22. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
from perusal of record, it appears that :-
(a) both the parties are major.
(b) the victim is the own sali (sister-in-law) of
the appellant and she has remained with him as a
second wife. She has herself stated that she wants
to live with the appellant as a kept and only on
maltreatment, the present case has been lodged.
(c) the victim has also stated that a
panchayati was held wherein the appellant has
been pressurized to keep the victim as his second
wife, but on refusal, the present case has been
lodged.
23. Thus, the offence under Section 376 IPC is not made
out as both the parties are major and they were in long
consensual relationship and the false pretext of marriage
cannot be a ground, as the factum of first marriage of the
appellant was very much known to the victim. Accordingly,
the conviction of the appellant for the offence under
Section 376 IPC is, hereby, quashed and set aside.
24. So far as the conviction of the appellant under
Section 417 IPC is concerned, the valuable securities have
been taken by making false promise and as such the
conviction of the appellant under Section 417 IPC is,
hereby, sustained.
25. Since the appellant has already remained in custody
for about four years and six months, he is discharged from
- 8 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.477 of 2019

2026:JHHC:14638
the liability of bail bond.
26. With above modification of the judgment of
conviction, the present appeal stands disposed of.
27 . 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 13 May, 2026
Ravi-Chandan /-
NAFR
Uploaded on 18.05.2026
- 9 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.477 of 2019