Jahru Prajapati vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 1771 Jhar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                          Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 218 of 2018
                                     .....

     Jahru Prajapati                                         --- --- Appellant
                                     Versus
     The State of Jharkhand                                  -- --- Respondent
                                         ---

CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh The Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary Through Video Conferencing

---

           For the Appellant         : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Adv.
           For the Respondent        : Mr. Azeemuddin, A.P.P.
                                         ---

07/12.04.2021     Heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr. A.K. Sahani and

learned A.P.P on the prayer for suspension of sentence made by the appellant through I.A. No.3328/2020.

Appellant along with one Anuram Manjhi has been convicted by the learned trial court vide judgment dated 21st December 2017 passed in Sessions Trial No.110/2016 by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh whereby the appellant along with Anuram Manjhi, co- accused has been held guilty under Section 376D of the I.P.C. and awarded rigorous imprisonment for 20 years.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the case of the present appellant is exactly same and similar to that of the co-convict Anuram Manjhi who has been granted the privilege of suspension of sentence by the Coordinate Bench of this Court presided over by one of us (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. and Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) vide order dated 5th August 2019. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the victim was not knowing the name of the accused persons prior to the occurrence, rather the persons who have written the report, have disclosed the name of the accused persons. Considering the evidence of the informant victim in paragraph-9 of her cross- examination, false implication of the appellant cannot be ruled out. Learned counsel for the appellant has also drawn attention of this Court towards the medical evidence (Ext.5) proved by P.W.8 which shows that no spermatozoa was found, no injury on private part and the cytology report (Ext.5/1) also shows spermatozoa not found in the smear. It is submitted that considering the evidence of the informant and other prosecution witnesses and that P.W.2 Anuj Kumar, P.W.3 Sachin Kumar, P.W.4 Mahendra Ram have been declared hostile by the prosecution and the victim was found to be aged about 22 years,

this Court had been pleased to grant privilege of suspension of sentence to the co-convict Anuram Manjhi. It is further submitted that as per the statement of victim herself, she was interested in solemnizing marriage with Bhim Ram but because of difference in the caste, her brother and sister-in-law and the community people were not ready. Considering the evidence of the victim who lived with Bhim Ram, the appellant could not be convicted under Section 376D I.P.C. Therefore, he may also be granted the privilege of suspension of sentence.

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer stating that victim has identified both the accused persons in the dock. However, he does not dispute that on similar material evidence co-convict Anuram Manjhi has been granted the privilege of suspension of sentence in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 196 of 2019 vide order dated 5th August 2019.

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that as of now the appellant has completed more than five years of custody since his surrender on 31st March 2016.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the materials on record as also the fact that on the same materials, co-convict Anuram Manjhi has been granted privilege of suspension of sentence by this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 196 of 2019, we are inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail during pendency of the appeal by suspending the sentence. Appellant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount, each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh in connection with Sessions Trial No.110/2016 with the conditions that one of the bailors must be close relative of the appellant and that the appellant as well as his bailors shall not change their addresses and mobile numbers, if any, without prior permission of the learned trial court. I.A. No.3328/2020 stands disposed of.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Shamim/