Jharkhand High Court acquits Pakur man in rape case, sets aside 10-year sentence
THE JHARKHAND STORY NETWORK Ranchi, October 14: The Jharkhand High Court has set aside the conviction and 10-year prison sentence imposed on…
THE JHARKHAND STORY NETWORK
Ranchi, October 14: The Jharkhand High Court has set aside the conviction and 10-year prison sentence imposed on Satrughan Lohar in a rape case, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava allowed Lohar’s criminal appeal against the judgment delivered by the Principal Sessions Judge, Pakur, on February 26, 2018. The trial court had convicted him under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment, along with a fine of ₹25,000.
In its judgment pronounced on October 14, 2026, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence and directed that Lohar be released forthwith if he was not wanted in any other case.
Court Finds Material Inconsistency in Complainant’s Account
The case originated from a complaint filed in 2014 by a woman who alleged that Lohar had established a physical relationship with her after promising to marry her. According to the complaint, the two had known each other for some time, and Lohar allegedly took her to his house on March 5, 2013, on the assurance of marriage.
She alleged that the relationship continued for about a year and that, when she pressed him to formalise the marriage, he obtained her thumb impression on a blank sheet of paper with the assistance of his relatives and turned her out of the house on June 1, 2014.
During the trial, however, the complainant gave a different account of the alleged incident. She testified that Lohar had chased her near Pathpahari market, taken her towards a field and raped her at around 7 pm before assuring her that he would marry her.
The High Court considered this difference significant, noting that the allegation of rape in a field had not appeared in the original complaint. The investigating officer had also testified that the complainant had not mentioned this particular incident in her statement recorded during the investigation.
Evidence of Relationship and Age Considered
The Bench examined the testimonies of the complainant, other prosecution witnesses, the investigating officer and the doctor who had examined her.
The judgment noted that a cousin of the complainant had testified that the two had been in a romantic relationship. The investigating officer also referred to material in the case diary indicating that they had developed a relationship while working at a brick kiln in West Bengal.
The court further observed that the complainant had acknowledged during cross-examination that Lohar’s name was recorded as her husband in her Aadhaar card. The medical board had assessed her age as between 18 and 19 years at the relevant time.
Considering these circumstances alongside the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s account, the Bench concluded that the complainant’s testimony did not inspire sufficient confidence to sustain the conviction.
Court Examines Promise of Marriage and Consent
The trial court had held that the complainant’s consent to the physical relationship was obtained under a misconception of fact because of the alleged promise of marriage.
The High Court examined this finding in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Uday v. State of Karnataka, which discusses the distinction between a false promise of marriage and consent obtained under a misconception of fact.
Applying the legal principles to the evidence before it, the Bench held that the material on record did not establish that Lohar had induced the complainant to consent through a false promise of marriage from the very beginning of the relationship. It found that the trial court’s conclusion on this point was not supported by cogent and reliable evidence.
The High Court reiterated that a criminal conviction must be based on proof beyond reasonable doubt. Concluding that the prosecution had failed to meet this standard, the Bench set aside the trial court’s judgment of conviction and sentence.
The appeal was allowed, and the court directed that Lohar be released forthwith, provided he was not required in any other case.
