BARELAL PASI vs STATE OF JHARKHAND

2026:JHHC:32764


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 754 of 2005

[ Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated
09.06.2005, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in
Sessions Trial No. 634 of 1995 ].

Barelal Pasi, son of Jagarnath Pasi, resident of
Shankarpur, P.S. – Haria, Dist.-Allahabad at present
resident of Kenduadih, P.S. – Kenduadih, District –
Dhanbad.
… … Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Victim ‘X’ through her guardian … Respondents

…..
For the Appellant : Md. Zaid Ahmad, Advocate
Mr. Aman Ali, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P.
…..
P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on 08.09.2026 Pronounced on 06.11.2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as
learned Spl.P.P. for the State.
2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 09.06.2005
passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in
Sessions Trial No. 634 of 1995, whereby and
whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the
offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and sentenced
to undergo R.I. of seven years.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on
1

2026:JHHC:32764


30.11.1988, the informant’s daughter, aged about 06
years, was playing in front of her house. Accused Bare
Lal Pasi showed flower to the victim girl and took her
to his house and told that he would give a garland of
flowers. On the promise of accused to give her a
garland of flowers, the victim girl sat on the cot of the
accused. Thereafter, the accused removed salwar and
jumpher of the victim girl and committed rape upon
her. It is further submitted that due to the act of
accused, there was injury on the private part of the
victim girl and she was crying due to pain. Hearing
the crying of victim girl, her mother rushed to the
house of the accused and saw the occurrence.
Thereafter, the mother of the victim girl lifted in her
lap and brought to her house and disclosed about the
occurrence. Blood and semen were coming out from
the private part of the victim girl. There were blood
stains and semen stains on the Paijama of the victim
girl. The informant alleged that her daughter was
subjected to rape by the accused.
On the basis of aforesaid report, Kenduadih P.S.
Case No. 147 of 1988 was registered for the offence
under Section 376 of the I.P.C. against the accused.
4. After conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was
submitted against the accused and after taking
2

2026:JHHC:32764


cognizance, the case was committed to the court of
Sessions, where Sessions Trial No. 634 of 1995 was
registered. The accused denied the charge leveled
against him and claimed to be tried.
5. In course of trial, altogether 05 witnesses were
examined by the prosecution. Apart from oral
testimony of witnesses, following documentary
evidences have been adduced:-
Exhibit-1 : Signature of Jamal Mian on seizure
list.
Exhibit-1/1 : Signature of Hatim Mian on seizure
list.
Exhibit-1/2 : Signature of Ishaque Ansari on
Fardbeyan.
6. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence
has been adduced by the defence.
7. The learned trial court, after evaluating the evidence
available on record, recorded findings about guilt of
the appellant for the offence under Section 376 of
I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. of 07 years,
which has been assailed in this appeal.
Submission on behalf of the appellant
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently
argued that the learned trial court has miserably
failed to properly appreciate the evidence of witnesses
3

2026:JHHC:32764


in right perspective and arrived at wrong conclusion.
It is further submitted that the doctor, who has
examined the victim girl has not been examined. The
non-examination of the I.O. has caused prejudice to
the accused. The mother of the victim girl was the
most important witness in this case, but she was
neither shown as a prosecution witness in the charge
sheet nor examined by the prosecution, as such,
conviction and sentence of the appellant is fit to be set
aside and this appeal may be allowed.
Submission on behalf of State
9. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the
State has vehemently opposed the aforesaid
contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and
submitted that victim has categorically proved the
commission of rape by the present appellant which
find corroboration from other evidence available on
record. There is no valid reason to interfere with the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence of the appellant. This appeal is devoid of
merits and is fit to be dismissed.
Analysis, discussions and reasons
10. I have gone through the record the case along with
impugned judgment in the light of contentions raised
on behalf of both side.
4

2026:JHHC:32764


11. 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 in this appeal or not?”
12. Before imparting my verdict on the above point, it is
pertinent to apprise with the testimony of the
witnesses examined during trial.
13. P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 are witnesses of seizure list.
14. P.W.-3 is informant of this case. In his evidence, he
has stated that he was warming himself in sunlight at
about 2:30 P.M. on 30.11.1988, in the meantime, his
wife rushed towards him and told him to come inside
the house. He went inside the room and saw that his
daughter, aged about 5-6 years was weeping. His wife
said that Bare Lal Pasi has called her daughter for
weaving garland and alluring her for giving flowers,
Bare Lal Pasi took her daughter inside his house and
removed her paijama. Thereafter, the victim girl
started weeping and crying. Hearing the cry of his
daughter, the mother of victim went to the house of
accused and found her salwar was stained with
semen. This witness has also come to know about the
occurrence from his wife. The victim girl complained
about the incident committed by the accused. This
witness also noticed semen stained in the salwar of
5

2026:JHHC:32764


her daughter. She went to the police station and
lodged the F.I.R. and put his signature on it, which
was marked as Exhibit-1/2. The police also seized the
wearing cloths of victim and sent her for medical
examination.
In his cross-examination, this witness admits that
there are about 10 neighbours in a row residing in the
BCCL Quarter near the quarter of this witness, but
they have not witness in this case. He also admits
that only his wife and brother are witnesses of this
case. Jamal Mian is his mama. He is also witness in
this case. He also admits that his daughter told
nothing before the police.
He has denied the suggestion of defence that
there is a common hand pump and due to dispute of
fetching water from the hand pump with the accused
Bare Lal Pasi, his wife has falsely implicated him. He
also admits that he has come to know about the
occurrence of this case only from his wife and has no
personal knowledge.
15. P.W.-4 is the uncle of the victim girl. He was cutting
fire wood in front of his door at the time of
occurrence. Bare Lal Pasi is also his neighbour. He
heard sound of weeping of a girl child coming from the
house of Bare Lal Pasi, then his sister-in-law went to
6

2026:JHHC:32764


the quarter of Bare Lal Pasi and called this witness to
the house of Bare Lal Pasi. He went there and saw
that his niece was lying naked on the cot then his
sister-in-law took her in lap. He also noticed that near
the private part and thigh some stains was present to
the victim girl. Thereafter, they came out and also told
to his elder brother about the incident. He has been
declared hostile by the prosecution and cross-
examined by prosecution.
In his cross-examination, he has denied any
dispute or enmity with the accused.
16. P.W.-5 is the victim girl. She was examined on
19.05.2003 after 14 years of the alleged occurrence.
She has stated nothing about the occurrence and
simply stated that at that time, she was a small child
and the accused was intending to bring at his home
by catching her hand, but she was not desiring.
Hence, she was raising alarm.
In her cross-examination also she has stated
nothing else.
On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence
17.
has been adduced by defence. The case of defence is
denial from occurrence and false implication as well
as plea of innocence.

7

2026:JHHC:32764


18. From the aforesaid discussion of prosecution
evidence, it is crystal clear that the main prosecution
witness was mother of the victim, who has not been
examined in this case and other witnesses have
second hand knowledge, came to know from the
mother of the victim. Therefore, what actually
happened with the minor victim girl, who was small
child about 5-6 years, has not been proved by the
prosecution. Even the medical report of the victim and
the FSL report of seized salwar and jumpher has not
been produced to corroborate the prosecution story. It
appears to be a case of no evidence at all constituting
offence under Section 376 I.P.C. It appears that the
learned trial court has miserably failed to properly
appreciate the evidence of witnesses in right
perspective and arrived at wrong conclusion of guilt of
the appellant. The impugned judgment suffers from
serious error of law and liable to be set aside.
19. In view of above discussions and reasons, I find
merits in this appeal. Accordingly, the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the
appellant passed by the learned trial court is hereby
set aside.
20. In the result, this appeal is allowed .

8

2026:JHHC:32764


21. The appellant is set at liberty forthwith. He is also
discharged from the liability of bail bond. Sureties are
also discharged.
22. Pending I.A., if any, stand disposed of.
23. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court
record be sent back to the court concerned for
information and needful.





( Pradeep Kumar Srivastava , J.)


Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
th
Dated, the 6 November, 2026.
Sunil / N.A.F.R.
Uploaded on 06/11/2026
9