Jharkhand High Court
Chhoto Manjhi @ Chhotu Kumar ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 66 of 2019
Chhoto Manjhi @ Chhotu Kumar Manjhi --- --- 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 : Mrs. Jasvinder Mazumdar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Suraj Verma, Advocate
06/09.08.2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties on the prayer for suspension
of sentence of the appellant made through I.A. No. 3477 of 2021.
The sole appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 366 of the I.P.C and Section 6 of the POCSO Act by the
impugned judgment of conviction dated 03.12.2018 passed in POCSO
Case No. 22 of 2016 by the court of learned 1st Additional Sessions
Judge cum Special Judge, Deoghar and has been sentenced to undergo
R.I. for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and a default sentence under
Section 6 of the POCSO Act and also sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10
years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and a default sentence under Section
366 of the I.P.C by the impugned order of sentence dated 07.12.2018. All
the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the conviction
under Section 6 of the POCSO Act is without any evidence on record
since the victim refused to undergo medical examination. The proof of
age of the victim i.e., Aadhar Card, has been marked with objection as
Ext. 'X' since it is not a documentary evidence regarding proof of date of
birth like a matriculation certificate. P.W.3 Anil Manjhi, P.W.4 Ashok
Manjhi, P.W.5 Arun Kumar Sinha and P.W.6 Birbal Pandey have turned
hostile and except the evidence of father/informant- P.W.1 Daso Manjhi,
P.W.2 the victim and P.W.7, the investigating officer Ajay Kumar Verma,
there is no material evidence on record to convict the appellant under
Section 6 of the POCSO Act. In the absence of corroboration, even the
alleged offence under section 366 I.P.C is also not established. Appellant
has remained in custody for more than half of the sentence awarded
since 11.04.2016. Therefore, he may be enlarged on bail by suspending
his sentence.
Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer.
Having regard to the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and the materials on record relied upon from the lower court
record including the period of custody undergone by the appellant, we
are inclined to grant the privilege of suspension of sentence to the
appellant.
Accordingly, the appellant, named above, 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 1st Additional Sessions Judge cum
Special Judge, Deoghar in connection with POCSO Case No. 22 of 2016
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. 3477 of 2021 stands allowed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
A.Mohanty
