AALIM ANSARI vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

2026:JHHC:18288
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.118 of 2021
---------
[Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence
dated 20.02.2021, passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge – I, Rajmahal, in Sessions Trial No.116 of
2012, arising out of Ranga P.S. Case No.06 of 2012 (G.R.
No.33 of 2012)]
---------

Aalim Ansari, Aged about 24 years, son of Late Naim Ansari,
Resident of village Talbariya, P.O and P.S Ranga, District
Sahibganj. ….. Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
---------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Ashutosh Kr. Sinha, Advocate
Ms. Pushpanjali Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, A.P.P
---------
rd
Order No.08/ Dated: 23 June, 2026
1. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for
the appellant and Mr. Sardhu Mahto, learned counsel for
the State.
2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment
of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.02.2021,
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – I,
Rajmahal, in Sessions Trial No.116 of 2012, arising out of
Ranga P.S. Case No.06 of 2012, corresponding to G.R No.33
of 2012, 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.20,000/-
(Twenty thousand) and in default of fine, further sentenced
- 1 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.118 of 2021

2026:JHHC:18288
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
3. The prosecution story, in short, is based on the
written information dated 24.01.2012 of the informant-
cum-victim, stating therein that since last 8 months Aalim
Ansari was making physical relation with her on assurance
of marriage and when she became pregnant, she asked
Aalim Ansari to marry her. Aalim Ansari kept on lingering
to marry her and despite she was having pregnancy of five
months she did not marry her and threatened to kill her.
Lastly on 12.01.2012, Aalim Ansari refused to marry her. It
is alleged by the prosecutrix lady that Aalim Ansari has
raped her on assurance of marriage.
On the basis of above information of the victim,
Ranga P.S Case No.06 of 2012 dated 24.01.2012 has been
registered under Sections 376, 493 and 506 IPC, against
the accused-appellant and the police, after completing the
investigation, has submitted the charge-sheet under
Sections 376/ 493/ 506 IPC and the trial court has framed
the charge under Section 376 IPC. 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 07 witnesses and their depositions, in
short, are as follows:-
5. P.W.-1, Badiruddin Ansari, is one of the members of
the Panchayati . He has stated in his examination in chief
- 2 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.118 of 2021

2026:JHHC:18288
that the victim has admitted the fact in the Panchayati that
the accused has made physical relationship with her on
assurance of marriage and she was carrying child of Alim
Ansari. The accused has also admitted that he will marry
with the victim, but refused to do the same
6. P.W.-2, Khalil Ansari @ Bara Khalil, is the father of
the victim -cum- informant. He has deposed that the
accused raped his daughter on assurance of marriage and
further Panchayati was also held.
In cross-examination, he has admitted that Aalim is
the husband of his daughter and his daughter got pregnant
when the Nikah and Kabulnama were not made.
7. P.W.-3, Lal Mohammad, is also one of the members
of the Panchayati . He has also deposed that the accused
has refused to marry the victim when child was born as he
was already married.
In cross-examination, he has admitted that the victim
and accused-appellant are husband and wife.
8. P.W.-4, Anul Ansari, is also one of the members of
the Panchayati . He has deposed that Aalim has made
physical relationship with the victim on assurance of
marriage and when she became pregnant, he denied for
the marriage. In Panchayati , the accused assured to marry
the victim after the birth of the child, but later he denied.
9. P.W.-5, xxxxxx, is the informant herself. She has
deposed that the accused has made physical relationship
with her on assurance of marriage. When she became
- 3 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.118 of 2021

2026:JHHC:18288
pregnant, he assured that the marriage will be solemnized
after the birth of the child, but later he denied. She lodged
the case in the police station.
In cross-examination, she has admitted that there was
love affair between them and they have also got married
and she was happy in her relationship with Aalim. She has
admitted that she has two children with Aalim Ansari. She
has also stated that she got married to Aalim three years
back and before marriage, the case has already lodged by
her.
10. P.W.-6, Dr. Ajay Kumar, is the Investigating Officer
of the case. He has recorded the statement of the
prosecutrix and the witnesses and all of them supported
the prosecution case.
11. P.W.-7, Dr. Anna Kujuri, is the doctor who has
examined the prosecutrix and proved the prescription
(Ext.-x/1). During examination she found foetus of 24 weeks
having heart sound.
12. On consideration of above materials on record, the
trial Court has found the appellant guilty for the offence
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. Referring to the above depositions, learned counsel
for the appellant has submitted that the although allegation
against the appellant is the consensual relationship, but the
consent has been obtained by false pretext of marriage. A
- 4 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.118 of 2021

2026:JHHC:18288
Panchayait was held and subsequently they solemnized the
marriage and have been blessed with two children. The
victim has clearly stated in her statement that she was
having affair with the appellant and she was happy and the
case has been lodged as there was delay in performing
marriage.
On the basis of above factual matrix, it has been
submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that no
offence is made out under Section 376 IPC as both the
parties are major and further, they were aware regarding
the consequences of the relationship and only when she got
pregnant, as a pressure tactics, the present case has been
lodged and subsequently, they have solemnized the
marriage also. Accordingly, prayer has been made that the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence be quashed
and set aside and the appellant be acquitted in the facts
and circumstances of the case.
15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has
supported the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence.
16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
from perusal of record, it appears that both the parties are
major and their relationship was consensual and as a
pressure tactics, the present case has been lodged. Merely
having a sexual relationship and the bald statement that on
the false pretext of marriage, the consent has been
obtained, is not enough to convict the appellant and even
- 5 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.118 of 2021

2026:JHHC:18288
this factual matrix has been negated by the victim in her
deposition.
17. In view of above factual matrix of the present case,
the conviction of the appellant under Section 376 IPC is
hereby, quashed. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 20.02.2021, passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge – I, Rajmahal, in
Sessions Trial No.116 of 2012, arising out of Ranga P.S.
Case No.06 of 2012, corresponding to G.R No.33 of 2012 is,
hereby, quashed and set aside.
18. In the result, the appeal stands allowed and
accordingly disposed of.
19. The appellant is on bail, hence, he is discharged from
the liability of bail bond.
20. 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
rd
Dated, the 23 June, 2026
Ravi-Chandan /-
NAFR
Uploaded on 25.06.2026
- 6 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.118 of 2021