SIMANTA CHAR vs STATE OF JHARKHAND
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
2026:JHHC:26333
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1533 of 2005
[Against the judgment of conviction dated 09.12.2005 passed by learned
2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Sessions Case No.172 of 2001
(arising out of Nala P.S. Case No.100 of 2000 registered for the offence
under sections 376/511 of IPC)]
---------
Simanta Char, son of Baidyanath Char, resident of-Hamarabad, P.S.-
Bindapathar, District-Jamatara ……Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Chitranjan Mitra, S/o-Late Atul Chandra Mitra, R/o-Khamaar Baad, P.S.
Birdpokhar, District-Dumka …. Respondent
----------
For the Appellant : Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P.
---------
PRESENT
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
-----------
th
CAV On 04 August, 2026 Pronounced On 31/08/2026
1. Heard Mrs. J. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Spl.P.P.
2. Instant criminal appeal is preferred by the above named appellant being
aggrieved and dissatisfied with his conviction and sentence dated
nd
09.12.2005 passed by learned 2 Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara in
Sessions Case No.172 of 2001 (arising out of Nala P.S. Case No.100 of
2000 registered for the offence under sections 341/376/511/376 of IPC),
whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the
Page 1 of 13
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1533 of 2005
2026:JHHC:26333
offence under sections 376/511 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for 4 years.
Factual Matrix:-
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 07.10.2000 at about
5:00 pm, the present appellant attempted to commit indecent assault and
forcibly put vermillion on the head of the informant’s minor
daughter(victim) aged about 15-16 years for which a case was lodged at
Bindapather (Nala) Police Station. It is further alleged that on
22.10.2000 at about 6:30 am, while the victim girl had gone to
discharge nature’s call at village pond, then the accused, Simanta Char
caught hold of her from behind and brought towards the bushes and
lying down on earth on the point of knife extending the threat of life,
attempted to commit rape with her. It is further alleged that on hearing
the alarm raised by the victim girl, the informant along with his son,
namely, Viveka Nand Mitra and son-in-law Bhola Nath Dey went there,
then accused managed to flee away snatching the golden chain of the
victim girl. It is further alleged that due to fear of the accused, the
informant has sent his daughter to his own sister’s house in another
village and hiding himself anyhow reached the Nala Police Station on
25.10.2000 and lodged this written report.
4. On the basis of above written report of the informant, FIR was
registered for the offences under sections 341, 376, 511 and 379 of IPC.
Page 2 of 13
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1533 of 2005
2026:JHHC:26333
5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against
accused for the offence under sections 341/376/511 and 379 of IPC.
6. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of
Sessions, where Sessions Case No. 172 of 2001 was registered.
7. The appellant has denied the charges leveled against him for the offence
under sections 376/511 of IPC and claimed to be tried.
8. In course of trial, altogether 4 witnesses were examined by the
prosecution, namely:-
P.W.1 -Viveka Nand Mitra
P.W.2- Chitranjan Mitra (informant)
P.W.3 -victim
P.W.4 -Sadanand Mitra
9. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, the following documentary
evidences have been adduced by the prosecution i.e.:-
Ext.1- Signature of informant on written report
Ext.1/1- Signature of Bhola Nath Mitra on the written report
Ext.2- Written report
Ext.3- Formal FIR
Ext.4- C.C. of FIR of Nala (Bindapather P.S. Case No.96 of
2000 dated 08.10.2000 registered for the offences under
sections 341 and 354 of IPC on the basis of written report of
the victim of this case against the accused).
Page 3 of 13
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1533 of 2005
2026:JHHC:26333
10. On the other hand, the defence case is denial from the occurrence and
false implication and plea of innocence.
11. The defence has also examined one witness, namely, Narayan Chander
Char, who happens to be own uncle of the accused. According to this
witness, the father of the victim girl (informant) proposed for marriage
of his nephew (accused) with the victim girl about two months prior
lodging this case which the accused refused saying that in the same
village, he will not solemnize marriage. Then, the informant threatened
the appellant to falsely implicate in a case and teach a lesson. As such,
this false case has been lodged against the appellant.
12. Learned trial court after evaluating the evidence available on record
held the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offence and sentenced him as
stated above, which has been assailed in this appeal.
Submission on behalf of appellant:-
13. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that P.W.1 is brother of
the victim, P.W.2 is informant-cum-father of the victim, P.W.3 is the
victim girl herself and P.W.4 is the younger brother of the victim. All
the witnesses examined in this case are close relative and highly
interested witnesses, whose testimony has to be scrutinized with great
care and caution so that the possibility of false implication may
completely be ruled out. It is further argued that the sole eye witness of
this case is the victim girl, who has been examined as P.W.3. According
to her evidence, the accused caught hold of her and thrashed on earth
Page 4 of 13
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1533 of 2005
2026:JHHC:26333
and put off her pant and salwar, gagging her mouth so that she could
not raise alarm. The accused also pointed out a knife to her threatening
to kill her if she raises any kind of alarm. She anyhow raised hulla , then
her father, brother and brother-in-law arrived at the place of occurrence
but the accused snatched her golden chain and fled away. She has also
th
stated that on 07 October, 2000, the appellant has forcibly put
vermillion on her head for which a case was lodged (Ext.4). It is further
argued that the testimony of the victim suffers from material
contradictions as regards manner of occurrence, place of occurrence,
and arrival of other witnesses on her raising alarm. The victim herself
admits that her mouth was gagged by one hand and by other hand, the
accused was holding a knife, then it is absolutely impossible that the
victim will be thrashed on earth and her wearing garments may be
untied and put off, if his both hands were involved as stated by the
victim herself. She has also admitted that she was prevented from
raising alarm then, it is also anomalous as to how in any manner, she
could be able to raise alarm and hearing the same, her father and brother
and brother-in-law arrived at place of occurrence. It is further submitted
that the son-in-law of the informant has not been examined, who is said
to be present at the time of occurrence. The other witnesses, P.W.1 and
P.W.2 are also family members of the victim girl, who have claimed to
arrive at the place of occurrence after hearing hullah of the victim girl,
which is inherently false in the light of testimony of victim girl. It is
Page 5 of 13
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1533 of 2005
2026:JHHC:26333
further submitted that in her cross-examination, the victim girl herself
admits that she is acquainted with the accused since 8-10 years. It is also
admitted that she has sustained injuries in course of incident but was not
examined by the doctor, but no injury report has been brought on
record. The Investigating Officer has also not been examined as such
defence has been seriously prejudiced in getting explanation about the
material contradictions appearing in the evidence of witnesses. The
place of occurrence has also not been proved. The single compound
question was asked by the learned trial court in the statement under
section 313 of Cr.P.C without mentioning the actual place and time of
the alleged occurrence. It is further submitted that no specific overt act
towards commission of rape with the victim girl has been proved by the
prosecution as per evidence of the victim girl. The presence of P.W.1
and P.W.2 at the place of occurrence is also not believable. The village
pond is used for discharging natures usually by all the villagers in the
evening time, but not a single independent witness of the village has
been examined by the prosecution to corroborate the prosecution case.
Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the
appellant is absolutely illegal and beyond the weight of evidence based
upon improper interpretation of the oral testimony of the witnesses
without taking into consideration the materials elicited in the cross-
examination, which is liable to be set aside and the appellant deserves
acquittal from the charge leveled against him, allowing this appeal.
Page 6 of 13
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1533 of 2005
2026:JHHC:26333
In the alternative, it is submitted that at best the material facts
as disclosed by the victim girl if relied on its face value, no offence
under sections 376/511 of IPC is made out rather the offence comes
under section 354 of IPC. The appellant has remained in custody in this
case for 1 month and 9 days. The victim and the appellant are now
married and leading a happy conjugal life. It is further submitted that
more than 2 ½ decades has been elapsed from the date of alleged
offence. The appellant has not been indulged in any criminal activities
since the alleged occurrence and his conviction. As such, the
imprisonment already undergone by the appellant for the offence under
section 354 of IPC is sufficient punishment for his guilt. Therefore, the
conviction and sentence passed against the appellant may be reduced
accordingly.
Submission on behalf of State:-
14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the
aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and submitted
that learned trial court has very wisely and aptly considered all the
aspects of the case in a threadbare manner and arrived at right
conclusion. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned
judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant, calling
for any interference by way of this appeal, which is fit to be dismissed.
However, it is admitted that it was the first offence of the appellant and
he has not criminal background.
Page 7 of 13
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1533 of 2005
2026:JHHC:26333
Analysis, Reasons and Decision:-
15. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned
judgment and order in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of
both side.
16. The only point for determination in this appeal is that “ as to whether
the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the
appellant passed by learned trial court suffers from any error of
law calling for any interference in this appeal? ”
17. Before delving on merits in connection with above points, it is
necessary to take brief resume of oral as well as documentary evidence
adduced by the prosecution to substantiate the charges leveled against
the appellant
18. It appears that altogether 4 witnesses have been examined by the
prosecution.
The sterling witness of this case is the victim girl , who has been
examined as P.W.3. According to her evidence, on 22.10.2000 at about
6:00 pm, when she went to attend the natures call, the accused caught
hold of her and thrashed on earth and put off her pant and salwar,
gagging her mouth, so that she could not raise alarm. The accused also
pointed out a knife to her threatening to kill her, if she raises any kind of
alarm. She anyhow raised hulla , then her father, brother and brother-in-
law arrived at the place of occurrence, but the accused snatched her
th
golden chain and fled away. She has also stated that on 07 October,
Page 8 of 13
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1533 of 2005
2026:JHHC:26333
2000, the appellant has put vermillion on her head against her will, for
which a case was lodged (Ext.4).
In her cross-examination, she admits that the accused put
vermillion on her head against her will on the occasion of Durgapuja.
She further admits that the accused has not assaulted her by knife, when
she raised alarm. However, she stated before the police that the accused
caught hold of her on the point of knife threatening to kill her, if she
will raise hulla . She admits that she has sustained injury on her backside
and leg but she was not examined by any doctor. She has denied the
suggestion of defence about any talk of her marriage with the accused
and her father has never put pressure to the accused for solemnizing
marrying with her.
P.W.1-Viveka Nand Mitra is the elder brother of the victim.
According to his evidence, on 22.10.2000 in the evening at about 6:30
pm, his sister had gone to village pond for discharging nature’s call,
which is situated backside to his house. His sister raise alarm saying
“Baba”, then he rushed towards the pond where he saw his sister (victim
girl) and his father and the accused Simanta Char, who has thrashed his
sister in the bushes and untied the knot of pant ( salwar ) and was making
preparation to commit rape with her. Seeing them, the accused fled
away snatching the golden chain of his sister. Prior to this occurrence,
the accused forcibly put vermillion on the head of his sister.
Page 9 of 13
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1533 of 2005
2026:JHHC:26333
In his cross-examination, he admits that after hearing hulla
raised by his sister, he along with his father and brother-in-law went
towards the place of occurrence. He has denied the suggestion of
defence that they were attempting to solemnize marriage of the accused
with his sister, which could not be materialized. Hence, this false case
has been lodged.
P.W.2- (Mr. XY) is the father of the victim-cum-informant
of this case. According to his evidence, on the date and time of
occurrence, while his daughter (victim) was returning from the pond
after discharge of nature’s call in the evening, then the accused, Simanta
Char caught hold of her, gagged her mouth and pushed towards the
bushes on the point of knife, thrashed her on the ground and attempted
to commit rape with her. When he reached at the place of occurrence
along with his son and son-in-law, he saw his daughter was lying flat on
the earth and the accused, Simanta Char was lying on her body. Seeing
this witness and other family members, the accused fled away then his
daughter disclosed about the incident to them. He has also stated about
the previous misconduct of the accused of forcibly putting vermillion on
the head of his daughter, for which a case was also lodged (Ext.4). He
th
went to police station on 24 October, 2000 along with his son-in-law
and lodged this case.
In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he has no
previous enmity with the accused. He also admits that his daughter
Page 10 of 13
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1533 of 2005
2026:JHHC:26333
(victim) disclosed to him that the accused gagged her mouth and
pointed a knife to her. He himself has not seen such occurrence. He
further reiterates that after hearing alarm raised by his daughter, he
along with his son and son-in-law rushed towards the pond, which is
situated at a distance of 250 to 300 hands and when they reached at the
place of occurrence, the pant of the victim girl was opened and the
accused was laying over her body. He did not go to lodge the FIR along
with the victim girl. He further admits that in respect of incident of
putting vermillion on the head of his daughter prior to this occurrence,
the case was lodged by him and his daughter was not brought to police
rd
station. He did not lodge the FIR on 23 October, 2000 rather was
consulting with the family members for lodging the case. The victim
girl was not sent for medical examination. He has denied the suggestion
of defence that he was putting pressure to solemnize marriage of his
daughter with the accused, which he declined, hence, he has lodged this
false case.
P.W.4-Sadanand Mitra is the younger brother of the victim
girl and is a hearsay witness. According to his evidence, he had gone to
play football in other village on 22.10.2000 and when he returned about
7:00 pm, then he came to know that the accused Simanta Char has
attempted to commit rape with his elder sister. He admits that the
accused frequently used to tease and harass his sister.
Page 11 of 13
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1533 of 2005
2026:JHHC:26333
19. I have given anxious consideration to overall aspects of the case as
testified by the prosecution witnesses and also gone through
impugned judgment. It appears that there is no specific overt act
towards commission of rape as alleged by the victim against the
appellant rather it was an indecent assault committed by the accused
with intention to outrage her modesty. In the factual background as
proved by the prosecution, particularly on the basis of evidence of the
victim girl, which could not be disbelieved in its entirety, simply
because, some contradictions and improvements have appeared during
her cross-examination, the ingredients of offence under sections
376/511 of IPC is absolutely lacking in this case rather a case under
section 354 of IPC is proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubt by the
prosecution. Therefore, the conviction and sentence for the offence
under sections 376/511 of IPC is hereby set aside and the appellant is
found guilty for the offence under section 354 of IPC.
20. So far the quantum of sentence for the offence under section 354 of IPC
is concerned and considering the background of the case, the nature of
offence committed by the appellant, his age, character and antecedent,
and also in view of the fact that about 2 ½ decades has been passed
since the occurrence and the appellant has already sustained
imprisonment for about 1 month and 9 days during pendency of trial
and post-conviction period, it appears expedient in the ends of justice
Page 12 of 13
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1533 of 2005
2026:JHHC:26333
to sending the appellant for the offence under section 354 of IPC to the
extent awarded imprisonment already undergone.
21. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in
conviction and sentence of the appellant to the extent mentioned above.
22. The appellant is on bail, hence, he is discharged from liability of bail
bond. The sureties are also discharged.
23. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly.
24. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be sent back
to the concerned trial court for information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated:-31/08 /2026
Pappu /-N.A.F.R.
Uploaded on 01/09/2026
Page 13 of 13
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1533 of 2005