Jharkhand High Court
Mahesh Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 968 of 2019
Mahesh Yadav --- --- 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. Neeta Krishna, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P.
06/23.08.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P.
representing the State on the prayer for suspension of sentence of the
appellant made through I.A. No. 3673 of 2021.
The sole appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 376(2) of the I.P.C and Section 6 of the POCSO Act by the
impugned judgment of conviction dated 26.06.2019 passed in Koderma
(Mahila) P.S. Case No. 06 of 2018 / Spl. POCSO Case No. 33 of 2018
by the court of learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I cum
Special Court (POCSO Act), Koderma and has been sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- with a default
sentence under Section 376(2) I.P.C. by the order of sentence dated
28.06.2019. No separate sentence has been awarded under Section 6 of
the POCSO Act.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Doctor P.W.1
who examined the victim on 27.06.2018, has not found any external or
internal injury and no sign of sexual assault was found. The doctor has
opined that it cannot be confirmed whether rape was committed. P.W.2,
another doctor, who examined the victim on 29.06.2018, found the
victim to be aged 16-17 years, as per the radiological examination, Ext. 1
and Ext.1/1. P.W.4 is the mother of the victim and P.W.5 and P.W.6 are
maternal grandmother and maternal grandfather respectively, who have
not seen the occurrence. The entire conviction is based upon the
statement of victim P.W.3, who has alleged a serious crime of rape
against the appellant, who is her own father. Learned counsel for the
appellant submit that it was an instigation on the part of the mother as it
appears that there was dispute between the mother and the father from
the statement of P.W.6, maternal grandfather. Therefore, appellant, who
has remained in custody since the date of his arrest i.e., 27.06.2018 may
be enlarged on bail by suspending his sentence.
Learned A.P.P. has strongly opposed the prayer. It is submitted
that a heinous offence was committed by the appellant, who is the father
of the victim aged 16-17 years. The medical report Ext.1 confirms that
she was sexually experienced. The delay in institution of the F.I.R in
such a family matter cannot exonerate the appellant from the seriousness
of the charges made by his own daughter. Therefore, appellant may not
be enlarged on bail.
We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and taken note of the relevant materials relied upon by them from
the L.C.R. On consideration of the totality of facts and circumstances
noted above and that the victim P.W.3 is the own daughter of the
appellant, who has committed such heinous offence coupled with the
report of the doctor, P.W.1, we do not find any grounds made out by the
appellant to grant him bail at this stage.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 3673 of 2021 stands rejected.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
A.Mohanty
