RAMESH SAHU vs STATE OF JHARKHAND

2026:JHHC:18889
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 978 of 2005
[ Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
04.07.2005 & 05.07.2005 respectively, passed by learned Additional
]
District & Sessions Judge, II, Gumla, in S.T. Case No. 125 of 2004
--------
Ramesh Sahu, son of Sri Etwa Sahu, resident of Village-Palkot, P.S.-
Palkot, District-Gumla
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Victim Girl (X) … … Respondents
-----
P R E S E N T
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
--------
For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate
For the State : Mr. S.K. Srivastava, A.P.P.
--------
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on 17.06.2026 Pronounced on 29/06/2026

1. I have already heard the arguments of Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi,
learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.K. Srivastava, learned
A.P.P. for State.
2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and
order of conviction and sentence dated 04.07.2005 & 05.07.2005
respectively, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge,
II, Gumla, in S.T. Case No. 125 of 2004, whereby and whereunder the
above named appellant has been held guilty for the offence under
Sections 376 & 313 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for
seven years along with fine of Rs.2000/- for the offence under Section
376 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for five years along with fine of Rs.2000/- for
the offence under Section 313 of the I.P.C. with default stipulation.
Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Factual Matrix
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the prosecutrix

2026:JHHC:18889
was married with one Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Naik, in the year 1987-88
and after short span of two years of her marriage, her husband expired
due to tuberculosis. The prosecutrix started living at her paternal home
since after death of her husband. It is alleged that the prosecutrix
developed friendship with Ramesh Sahu (appellant). On 10.12.1999,
both have gone to forest area, where the appellant caught hold of her
from behind and committed rape upon her extending threatening of life.
It is alleged that subsequently, the appellant allured the prosecutrix to
solemnize marriage and continued in sexual intercourse with her and
often used to stay at her house in the night. It is further alleged that in
the month of December 2002, the appellant got a rented house owned
by Heeno Ghasi situated at Depatoli, Palkot, where the prosecutrix also
resided with the appellant for 4-5 months. The prosecutrix became
pregnant twice, but the appellant got the same terminated by assaulting
her on abdomen. It is alleged that the prosecutrix persistently requested
for solemnizing marriage with the appellant, but in one pretext or other
he was postponing the same and ultimately flatly denied to perform
marriage with her. Hence, the prosecutrix lodged F.I.R. before Palkot
police station on 06.01.2004 from her parental home.
On the basis of fardbeyan of the prosecutrix, F.I.R. was
registered for the offence under Sections 323, 376 & 313 of the I.P.C.
After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against
the appellant and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions,
where S.T. Case No. 125 of 2004.
4. The appellant denied from charges leveled against him and
claimed to be tried.
2

2026:JHHC:18889
5. In the course of trial, altogether six witnesses were examined
including the prosecutrix on behalf of prosecution and several
documentary evidence were also adduced.
6. On the other hand, the case of defence is denial from occurrence
and false implication.
7. However, two witnesses have been examined by defence, namely
D.W.-1 , Tempo Ram and D.W.-2 , Heeno Devi and no documentary
evidence has been adduced by defence.
Submissions on behalf of appellant: -
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is
consensual sexual intercourse with a grown up lady and previously
married. The F.I.R. was lodged after 4-5 years of the alleged
occurrence, when the relationship between the appellant and the victim
became strained. It is further submitted that from the very contents of
F.I.R. and testimony of prosecutrix, it is crystal clear that she has
instituted this case when the appellant refused to solemnize marriage
with her. It is further submitted that all the witnesses examined by
prosecution are interested and related witnesses. P.W.-1 is the mother
and P.W.-2 is the father of the victim and P.W.-3 is the prosecutrix
herself. P.W.-4 an independent witness has been declared hostile by the
prosecution. P.W.-5 is the Doctor, who medically examined the victim
and P.W.-6 is the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the evidence of
interested witnesses cannot be relied upon as a gospel truth without any
corroboration from independent source, which is lacking in this case.
The doctor has found no history of termination of pregnancy of the
prosecutrix. In the given scenario as brought on record by the
3

2026:JHHC:18889
prosecution, no offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. is constituted.
The learned Trial Court has miserably failed to properly scrutinize the
testimony of witnesses and the essential ingredient of offence of rape,
as such arrived at wrong conclusion about guilt of the appellant.
Therefore, impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of appellant
is fit to be set aside and this appeal may be allowed.
Submissions on behalf of State: -
9. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has submitted that
from the very inception, the appellant trapped the victim under false
promise of marriage. There is cogent and consistent evidence of the
victim that she persistently requested the appellant to solemnize
marriage, but she was consoled and sexually exploited due to her
vulnerable condition after death of her husband. The intention of
appellant from the very inception was only to satisfy his sexual lust
with the prosecutrix without solemnizing marriage with her. The
prosecutrix became pregnant twice which was also got terminated by
administering medicines or by assaulting her on abdomen. There is no
reason to disbelieve the testimony of the prosecutrix and there is no
animus to falsely implicate the appellant. The conduct of the appellant
in having sexual intercourse on false promise of marriage having
deceitful intention to satisfy his lust from the very inception and not to
solemnize marriage with the prosecutrix has vitiated her consent, which
cannot be said to be voluntary consent rather suffers from
misconception of fact under Section 90 of the I.P.C. The learned Trial
Court has considered the overall aspects of the case in threadbare
manner and arrived at right conclusion about guilt of the appellant. The
4

2026:JHHC:18889
impugned judgment does not suffer from any error of law calling for
any interference in this appeal, which is devoid of merits and fit to be
dismissed.
10. I have gone through the record of the case along with impugned
judgment in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side.
11. The only point for consideration in this appeal is that “as to
whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the
appellant suffers from any serious error of law calling for any
interference in this appeal?”
12. Before delving to decide the above point, it is pertinent to apprise
with the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties during
the trial.
P.W.-3 , the prosecutrix, is the most important witness in this
case. She has consistently proved the contents of her fardbeyan and
deposed that she was married in the year 1987-88 with one Sunil
Kumar @ Sunil Naik. Unfortunately, her husband died due to
tuberculosis just after two years of the marriage, then she started
residing at her parental home at village Palkot. In the course of time,
the accused became familiar with her and on 10.12.1999 in the
morning, she had gone to nearby forest area, where accused Ramesh
Sahu caught hold of her from behind threatening that if she will raise
alarm, he will shoot him, thereafter, the accused forcibly committed
rape upon her. Subsequently, accused visited with the mother of this
witness and told her that he wants to keep this witness and bear all her
expenses. Thereafter, the accused started residing with her sometime in
her house. Due to sexual intercourse committed by accused she became
5

2026:JHHC:18889
pregnant which was also terminated by accused assaulting her on
abdomen. Thereafter, again the accused assured her in writing
promising to perform marriage with her and keep her properly. She
again became pregnant but the accused aborted her pregnancy by
assaulting. She has proved her signature on fardbeyan as Exhibit-1 .
She has denied the suggestion of defence that the accused was married
in the year 1997 itself, and he has no relationship with her. She has
further denied that she has lodged a false case with a view to blackmail
the accused with false allegations and also concocted a story of
abortion.
P.W.-1-Smt. Pati Devi is the mother of prosecutrix. According to
her evidence on the date of occurrence her elder daughter (prosecutrix)
had gone to forest area for grazing she-goat at about 09:00 A.M., the
accused Ramesh Sahu committed rape with her when her daughter
returned from the forest, she narrated about the incident and told that
the accused has threatened to kill by shooting and committed rape and
also threatened her not to disclose this incident to anyone otherwise she
will be killed. She has further deposed that prosecutrix was married in
the year 1987-88 but her husband died within two years of marriage
due to tuberculosis since then her daughter (prosecutrix) was residing at
her parental home.
In her cross-examination, she has also admitted that the accused
used to reside with her daughter about 3-4 years within her knowledge.
She has denied the suggestion of defence that this false case was lodged
with a view to blackmail the accused.
P.W.-2-Madhu Naik is the father of the prosecutrix. He has also
6

2026:JHHC:18889
deposed in the same line as mother of the prosecutrix. According to his
evidence also, his daughter was forcibly raped by the accused, while
she had gone to forest for grazing she-goat. Thereafter, accused used to
reside with his daughter for three years and in that period she became
pregnant then the accused administered her some medicine causing her
abortion.
In his cross-examination, he also admits that on 10.12.1999, his
daughter informed about occurrence of rape with her. He has denied the
suggestion of defence that with a view to extort some money from the
accused, he has lodged this false case at the instance of his daughter.
P.W.-4-Gandur Nayak has been declared hostile by the
prosecution.
P.W.-5-Dr. P. Narayan is the doctor who has examined the
victim on 06.01.2004 and found following:-
No external injury on any part of her body.
On internal examination:-
(i) Vagina admits two finders easily. Cervical os was round in
shape but not multiparous.
(ii) On microscopic examination of vaginal swab it shows no
spermatozoa.
In my Opinion:-
(a) The woman used to sexual intercourse, may have aborted in
past as shown from appearance of her cervical os.
(b) The evidence of rape was not found.
(c) The medical examination report proved by the doctor is
marked as Exhibit-2.
7

2026:JHHC:18889
In his cross-examination, this witness has failed to say as to how
long before the examination, the abortion had occurred.
P.W.-6-S.I., Vinay Kumar is the I.O. of this case. He took
charge of this case on 06.01.2004, while he was posted as S.I., Palkot
police station. He has proved the fardbeyan of prosecutrix as Exhibit-3
and endorsement on fardbeyan as Exhibit-3/1. He has further proved
formal F.I.R. as Exhibit-4. After receiving the charge of investigation,
he visited the place of occurrence and also recorded restatement of the
victim. He also recorded statement of parents of the victim and
inspected the place of occurrence. The first place of occurrence is
situated in village Gobarsili, Barka Madra Forest, where prosecutrix
was grazing her she-goat meanwhile, accused committed rape on her
near the Gobarsili rock. He arrested the accused Ramesh Sahu and also
sent the prosecutrix at Sadar Hospital, Gumla for medical examination.
After finding sufficient evidence against the accused, he submitted
charge-sheet for the offence under Sections 323, 313, 376 & 417 of the
I.P.C.
This witness has stated in his cross-examination that Gandur
Nayak (P.W.4) has stated in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
that Ramesh Sahu lured the prosecutrix with the promise of marriage
and kept her in the house of Heeno Ghasi and he used to go regularly.
He has not recorded statement of Heeno Ghasi because she was never
found in his house and his neighbor Gandur Nayak was interrogated.
There is nothing else in his cross-examination.
On the other hand, D.W.-1-Tempo Ram, the father of first
husband of the prosecutrix, namely Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Naik has
8

2026:JHHC:18889
simply stated that his son died in the month of Chaitra 2002, who was
married with the prosecutrix of this case. There is nothing else worth
quoting as defence.
D.W.-2-Heeno Devi has stated that accused Ramesh Sahu and
the prosecutrix never resided in her house on rent. She has stated
nothing else in favour of defence.
In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has
simply denied the occurrence and pleaded false implication. As per
trend of suggestion given to material witnesses the further plea of
defence is that he has falsely been implicated only for blackmailing and
extorting money.
13. From perusal of impugned judgment, it appears that the learned
Trial Court has considered that very first act of sexual intercourse
committed by the appellant with the prosecutrix in the forest area was
committed putting her in fear of death and grievous injuries. She was
also threatened to not disclose the incident to anyone and lodge any
case. Thereafter, the accused made a promise to marry with the
prosecutrix and started keeping her as husband and wife and bearing
her expenses within the knowledge of her parents, but later on he flatly
declined from solemnizing marriage with the prosecutrix without any
cogent reasons. Therefore, the consent of the victim was obtained not
only putting her in fear of death but also deceiving her on false pretext
of marriage. Accordingly, the appellant was held guilty for the offence
under Section 376 of the I.P.C. The delay in lodging the F.I.R. in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case was also considered to be
not inordinate and sufficiently explained with reasons. The learned
9

2026:JHHC:18889
Trial Court further found that the appellant has terminated pregnancy of
the prosecutrix twice by assaulting her on abdomen, while she was
resisting and protesting. Therefore, the said miscarriage was caused
without her consent. Accordingly, the appellant has been held guilty for
the offence under Section 313 of the I.P.C. also.
14. I have given anxious consideration towards the factual scenario
of this case as proved by the prosecution, particularly appearing in the
evidence of prosecutrix, who is sufferer of the crime. It is clear cut case
of the prosecutrix that initially she was subjected to rape on threat of
life on 10.12.1999. Thereafter, on persistent request of the accused who
also met to her in presence of her parents, that he will keep her and also
bear her expenses and solemnize marriage with her. She was permitted
to live with the accused. She also admits that about 3-4 years they
resided together and in that period she became pregnant twice, but her
pregnancy was terminated without her consent by the accused through
physical assault on abdomen.
15. The learned counsel for the appellant has laid much emphasis
upon the fact that there was consensual sexual relationship between the
parties for a long period of time. There is no whisper that the appellant
ever made any promise to solemnize marriage with the prosecutrix.
Therefore, the consent of the prosecutrix cannot be vitiated under
Section 90 of the I.P.C. being a false promise of marriage indicating
that the intention of the appellant was from the very inception was
deceitful and he never intended to solemnize marriage with the
prosecutrix.
The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon
10

2026:JHHC:18889
reported judgment in Mandar Deepak Pawar versus The State of
Maharashtra & Anr. reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 649 , wherein it
was held that the parties chose to have physical relationship without
marriage for a considerable period of time and later on for some reason
the parties fail apart due to breach of promise of marriage which was
made in good faith, but subsequently not fulfilled and F.I.R. lodged
after three years, therefore, amounts to misuse of criminal process.
16. In the case of Naim Ahamed versus State (NCT of Delhi) (2023)
15 SCC 385, the Hon’ble Apex Court has elaborately discussed the
applicability of Section 90 of the I.P.C. regarding consent in rape case
and distinguished false promise of marriage with breach of promise of
marriage, it was held :-
“21. ………………...There is a difference between giving a false
promise and committing breach of promise by the accused. In case
of false promise, the accused right from the beginning would not
have any intention to marry the prosecutrix and would have
cheated or deceited the prosecutrix by giving a false promise to
marry her only with a view to satisfy his lust, whereas in case of
breach of promise, one cannot deny a possibility that the accused
might have given a promise with all seriousness to marry her, and
subsequently might have encountered certain circumstances
unforeseen by him or the circumstances beyond his control, which
prevented him to fulfill his promise. So, it would be a folly to treat
each breach of promise to marry as a false promise and to
prosecute a person for the offence under Section 376.”
17. Thus, from the aforesaid principle laid down by the Hon’ble
11

2026:JHHC:18889
Apex Court, it is crystal clear that the consent of the prosecutrix for
indulgence in sexual intercourse with a person on false promise of
marriage would amount to “Misconception of fact” within the meaning
of Section 90, only if it is shown by the prosecution that from the very
beginning the accused had no intention to perform marriage with the
victim rather to deceive her only for fulfilling his sexual lust.
18. It is trite that consent of a woman with respect to Section 375 of
the I.P.C. must involve an active and reasoned deliberation towards the
proposed act. To establish whether the “consent” was vitiated by a
“Misconception of fact” arising out of a promise to marry; Two
propositions must be established; Firstly , promise of marriage must
have been a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of
being adhere to at the time, it was given and Secondly , false promise
itself, must be of immediate relevance, or bear a direct nexous to the
woman’s decision to engage in the sexual act.
19. In the instant case, it is undisputed fact that the prosecutrix was
married in the year 1987-88 and just within two years, she became
widow due to death of her husband, who was suffering from
tuberculosis. The prosecutrix was a helpless lady and started residing at
her paternal home, where on the fateful day the appellant forcibly
committed rape with her, while she was in forest for grazing she-goat.
Thereafter, the appellant proposed to the victim as well as to her parents
that he will marry and keep the victim with him and also bear her
expenses. The prosecutrix was also kept in a rented house by the
appellant and living as husband and wife. It is alleged that in the course
of time, the prosecutrix twice became pregnant, but her pregnancy was
12

2026:JHHC:18889
terminated by providing some medicine. In spite of, persistent request
of prosecutrix to solemnize marriage, the appellant in one excuse or
other was lingering the same. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention
that the first occurrence of forcible sexual assault took place with the
prosecutrix on 10.12.1999, the appellant has suggested the victim that
in the year 1997 itself his marriage was solemnized, rather the victim
has expressed her ignorance as to when the accused solemnize his
marriage. Therefore, it can safely be inferred that in spite of being a
married person, the appellant seduced the victim to solemnize marriage
with her and bear her expenses and also used to residing with her under
pretext of marriage and satisfying his sexual lust. When he declined to
solemnize marriage with the prosecutrix then this case was lodged. As
against it, the defence has brought nothing on record regarding any
exceptional circumstances due to which he was prevented from
solemnizing marriage with the victim. He has also concealed the
factum of his being already married person clearly indicates that from
the very inception, he had intention to deceive the prosecutrix and take
undue advantage of sexual lust. Therefore, it cannot be said that there
was any breach of promise of marriage due to reason of any
exceptional hardship rather it was false promise of marriage which was
never intended to be fulfilled vitiating the consent of prosecutrix under
Section 90 of the I.P.C. The mere fact that no case was lodged since
long period of 3-4 years does not hold much water to throw out the
prosecution case.
20. In view of above discussion and reasons, I concur with the
findings of learned Trial Court that the appellant has committed rape
13

2026:JHHC:18889
with the victim punishable under Section 376 of the I.P.C.
21. So far charge under Section 313 of the I.P.C. is concerned, there
is no iota of evidence, it is simply alleged by the prosecutrix that on
both occasion of her pregnancy, she was assaulted by appellant on her
abdomen which terminated her pregnancy. In this regard she has
admitted that she got her treatment by Dr. Shakuntala Pandey, but no
documentary evidence has been adduced in this regard nor the said Dr.
Shakuntala Panday was examined by the prosecution. Therefore, there
is no concrete evidence on record that the appellant has caused
miscarriage of the prosecutrix without her consent. It appears that the
learned Trial Court has simply believed the testimony of prosecutrix
without satisfying his conscience about the ingredients of offence under
Section 313 of the I.P.C. Therefore, conviction and sentence of the
appellant for the offence under Section 313 of the I.P.C. is hereby set
aside.
22. In view of aforesaid discussions and reasons, this appeal is
partly allowed . The conviction and sentence of the appellant for the
offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. is upheld, but the conviction and
sentence for the offence under Section 313 of the I.P.C. is set aside.
23. The appellant is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled and the
appellant is directed to surrender before the learned Trial Court within
two months from the date of this judgment to receive the sentence
awarded to him for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. by the
learned Trial Court, setting off the imprisonment already undergone by
him during pendency of trial.
24. If the appellant does not appear within the aforesaid stipulated
14

2026:JHHC:18889
period before the concerned Trial Court, the learned Trial Court shall
take all coercive steps for his arrest and after arrest of the appellant
send him to jail custody under proper conviction warrant for
undergoing the remaining period of sentence awarded to him by the
learned Trial Court for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C.
25. Pending I.A(s), if any, stands disposed of.
26. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record be
sent back to the court concerned immediately for information and
needful.

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court
Dated 29/06/2026
Arpit/ A. F. R.
Uploaded on 30/06/2026

15