Jharkhand High Court
Sonu Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1891 of 2017
1.Sonu Ansari
2.Ravi Kumar --------Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
Through Video Conferencing
For the Appellants : Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Tapas Roy, A.P.P.
07/03.08.2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties on the prayer for suspension
of sentence of the appellant no. 1 Sonu Ansari made through I.A. No.
3247 of 2021.
Both the appellants stand convicted for the offence punishable
under Sections 302,201 and 366(A) of the I.P.C by the impugned
judgment of conviction dated 29.08.2017 passed in G.R. No. 2999 of
2014 by the court of learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-1st
cum Spl. Court for POCSO Act, Hazaribag and have been sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each with a
default sentence each for the offence punishable under Section 302 of
the I.P.C; further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 8 years with a fine of Rs.
2000/- each and a default sentence each for the offence punishable under
Section 366-A I.P.C and have also been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3
years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each with default sentence each for the
offence punishable under Section 201 I.P.C by the impugned order of
sentence dated 01.09.2017 All the sentences were directed to run
concurrently.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the F.I.R instituted
by P.W.2 Sonu Lal Rajak alleges procuration of a minor girl aged 16
years for the purposes of forcing or seducing her for illicit intercourse
with another person and also causing her death and disappearance of
evidence. The F.I.R. was lodged on 22.07.2014 at 9.30 hrs. As per the
F.I.R. at about 3.00 a.m. on 21.07.2014, the mother of the informant and
the victim P.W.1 Anju Devi did not find her daughter on the bed and
started searching for her. Then the accused persons and one Nasim
Ansari were found taking her away but her daughter was again returned
by the three accused persons. She tried to catch the hand of Nasim
Ansari but he managed to flee himself. On 22.07.2014 at about 4.00 p.m.
the dead body of informant's sister was found in well in village Sakhiya,
Gurgutia Mohalla, where after the written report was submitted, which is
the basis of the F.I.R.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that just two hours prior
to the information of the dead body of informant's sister being found in
well, the informant's mother P.W.1 Anju Devi had lodged a sanha before
the Officer-in-Charge of Sadar (Muffasil) Police Station, Hazaribag in
which there was no mention of any of these facts or name of the accused
persons. P.W.1 Anju Devi at para 13 of her deposition has accepted this
fact. P.W.2 Sonu Lal Rajak informant-brother of the victim has also
stated at para 14 of his cross examination that his mother had lodged the
sanha at 1.00 p.m. and he had accompanied her. At para 12 of his
deposition he also says that he did not see the victim being taken by the
accused persons on that night. Learned counsel for the appellant has also
placed the evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W.7 Niraj Kumar),
who at para 1 and para 27 of his deposition has categorically stated that
sanha of missing of the daughter of P.W.1 Anju Devi was lodged by her
at 1.00 p.m. on the same day i.e., 22.07.2014 but there was no mention
of any of the accused persons having abducted her on the night of
21.07.2014. It is submitted that the entire allegations against the
appellant no.1 is an afterthought only to falsely implicate him. Moreover,
the Medical Board comprising of P.W.9 Dr. Angaraj Subhash Chandra,
P.W.10 Dr. Gopal Das, P.W.11 Dr. Ratna Rani Kunj have found death
caused by asphyxia due to drowning and there was no injury on the
private part of the victim and no sperm was found in the vaginal smear.
It is therefore submitted that appellant no.1 who is in custody since
25.07.2014 may be enlarged on bail by suspending his sentence.
Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the
evidence of P.W.1 Anju Devi, mother of the victim, an eye witness
together with the evidence of the informant, brother of the victim P.W.2
Sonu Lal Rajak, P.W.4 Priya Kumari sister of the victim and that the
dead body of the victim was found in a well, all cumulatively point to
the guilt of the appellant no.1. As such, appellant no.1 may not be
enlarged on bail.
We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and taken note of the materials on record relied upon from the
lower court record including the period of custody undergone by the
appellant no.1. On consideration of the materials on record and
submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it appears that mother of
the victim P.W.1 Anju Devi did not make any mention of the incidence
on the night of 21.07.2014 or the name of the appellant no.1 while
lodging a sanha at 1.00 p.m., which was instituted as Case Diary No. 77
of 2014 as affirmed by the Investigating Officer, P.W.7 Niraj Kumar at
para 1 and para 27 of his deposition. However, after the dead body was
found at about 3.00 p.m. on the same day, the F.I.R was lodged alleging
the involvement of the accused persons. Appellant no.1 has remained in
custody for 7 years till date. As such, taking into account all these facts
and circumstances, we are inclined to grant the privilege of suspension
of sentence to the appellant no.1.
Accordingly, the appellant no.1 Sonu Ansari, during the pendency
of this appeal, shall be enlarged 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 District & Additional Sessions Judge-
1st cum Spl. Court for POCSO Act, Hazaribag in connection with G.R.
No. 2999 of 2014 with the condition that he and his bailors shall not
change their address or mobile number without permission of the learned
Trial Court.
I.A. No. 3247 of 2021 stands allowed.
Let the name of Mr. Tapas Roy, learned A.P.P. appear in the cause
list, henceforth in place of erstwhile counsel.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
A.Mohanty
