High Court Jharkhand High Court

Gura Chattar vs State Of Jharkhand on 17 February, 2011

Jharkhand High Court
Gura Chattar vs State Of Jharkhand on 17 February, 2011
In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi

                        Cr (Jail) Appeal (D.B) No. 947 of 2010

               Gura Chattar            .......................... .........Appellant

                                 VERSUS

               State of Jharkhand.................................. .........Respondent

       CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL HARKAULI
              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. R. PRASAD

               For the Appellant             : Mr.P.K.Deomai, A.C
               For the Respondent           : A.P.P

5/ 17.2.11

. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Amicus Curaie, who has

assisted the Court from the side of the appellant and learned counsel for the State.

The appellant has been convicted on two circumstances, viz. (i) the testimony of P.W.2,

who says that he last saw the accused assaulting the deceased and trying to drawn her in a pond and (ii)

according to investigation after his arrest, the Maxi (dress) of the deceased girl was found at the

pointing out of the accused.

The question is whether P.W.2 is reliable or not. He is a close relative of the informant

and the deceased. According to his own statement despite witnessing the deceased girl being assaulted,

he remained silent for about 18 hours after the incident and does not disclose it to anybody. More

importantly, the condition in which the girl’s body was discovered indicated sexual assault on the girl.

The body was totally naked and only her private part was covered by her petticoat. The prosecution

case is that there was an attempt to molest the lady and upon her resistance, she was strangulated .

However, P.W.2 in his statement does not say when he found the accused assaulting the lady, her

clothes had been taken off or torn which would indicate that the lady was being assaulted without any

attempt to molest her . This circumstance also makes the belated disclosure of P.W.2 unreliable.

Accordingly, the above named appellant, during the pendency of this appeal, be

enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand ) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa (West Singhbhum) in

S.T. No.226 of 2005.

(Sushil Harkauli, J.

( R.R.Prasad, J. )

ND/