Jharkhand High Court
Laxman Singh Munda vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 884 of 2019
Laxman Singh Munda --- --- Appellant
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 Appellant : Mr. Dilip Kr. Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A.P.P
---
04/05.08.2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties on the prayer for
suspension of sentence of this appellant made through I.A. No.3046 of 2021.
The sole appellant stands convicted for the offences punishable
under Sections 366/34, 376(2) of the I.P.C. and Sections 4 and 6 of the
POCSO Act, by the impugned judgment of conviction dated 16.08.2019
passed in Sessions Trial Case No.600 of 2017 by the court of learned
Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVIII -cum- Special Judge, POCSO,
Ranchi. Co-accused Tarunath Singh Munda has also been convicted under
Section 366 read with Section 120B of the I.P.C. vide the same impugned
judgment and this appellant has been sentenced to undergo :
Convict Offence Sentence Nature
Imprisonment Fine Default
Laxman Singh Munda
Section 366/34 IPC 05 Years R.I Rs.5000/ 6 month R.I
Concurrent
Section 376(2) IPC 12 Years R.I Rs.8000/ 1 Year R.I
Section 4 POCSO Act 07 Years R.I Rs.8000/ 1 Year R.I
Section 6 POCSO Act In view of Section 42 of Act, no separate
sentence is required
vide impugned order of sentence dated 17.08.2019. The other convict has
been sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and a
default sentence under Section 366 read with Section 120B of the IPC.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that three friends of
the victim P.W.5 i.e. P.W.1 to 3 have turned hostile. Similarly one person of
the locality P.W.4 has also turned hostile out of total 8 prosecution witnesses.
The vehicle which was alleged to be used as per the informant P.W.6 brother
of the victim was stated to be at Varanasi on the date of occurrence as found
during investigation by the I.O. P.W.8. As per the report of the Doctor P.W.7
supported by the assessment of age by the Medical Board (Ext.4) the victim
was aged 16-17 years of age, + - 2 years. There was no sign of injury external
or internal on her body. She was not pregnant nor any spermatozoa was found
on the vaginal smear. There was no sign of recent sexual intercourse. The
victim in her deposition has narrated that she was taken to several places like
Kolkata and then brought back to Bariatu during which period she was
subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the appellant. However, she has
never raised any cries or resisted over a period of about 16 days when she
travelled and stayed with the appellant. Therefore, the appellant has wrongly
been convicted on the basis of unreliable evidence brought by the prosecution.
Therefore, the appellant may be enlarged on bail by granting suspension of
sentence since he is in custody from 27th August 2017.
Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer. He submits that the
victim is a minor as per the provisional certificate of secondary examination
of Jharkhand Academic Council (Ext-3). Her date of birth recorded in the
certificate is 29th September 2003 and as such on the date of occurrence i.e.
11th August 2017 she was about 14 years of age. Therefore, there is no case of
consensual physical relationship between the victim and the appellant.
Therefore, the appellant may not be enlarged on bail.
We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and taken note of the materials relied upon by them from the lower
court records.
On consideration of the materials on record and the submissions
of the parties, it appears that the victim was about 14 years of age on the date
of occurrence as per the provisional certificate of secondary exam of the
Jharkhand Academic Council Ext.3 and she was recovered along with the
appellant on 27th August 2017 after 16 days of the occurrence. She was
examined on 29th August 2017.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to
grant bail to this appellant during pendency of this appeal at this stage.
Accordingly, I.A. No.3046 of 2021 is dismissed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J)
Shamim/
