Seikh Imran vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 3113 Jhar

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 906 of 2018

             Seikh Imran                                     ---          ---    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. Randhir Kumar, Advocate
              For the Respondent:      Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P
                                         ---
03 / 25.08.2021      Heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Randhir Kumar and learned

A.P.P Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha on the prayer for suspension of sentence of this appellant made through I.A. No. 4157/2021.

2. The sole appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under sections 363 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted of the charges under section 366 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code while other accused Seikh Salim has been acquitted of the charges by the impugned judgment dated 13.06.2018 passed in Sessions Trial No. 221/2014 by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa and has been sentenced to undergo R.I for ten years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and default sentence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced to undergo R.I for five years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and default sentence under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code by the impugned order of sentence dated 19.06.2018.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the victim (PW-3) though has recorded her statements under section 164 of the Cr. P.C and also deposed during trial, but her evidence is not trustworthy since she does not claim to have raised any protest or cries when she was allegedly being taken by train to Odisha. She also did not disclose the registration number of Scorpio on which she was allegedly abducted. Apart from the victim, none of the other related prosecution witnesses i.e. her father (PW-4), her cousin (PW-1) and another cousin (PW-2) have themselves seen the victim being abducted by the other accused. The doctor (PW-6) who examined her three days after the alleged incidence on 19.02.2014 has not found any mark of violence on her body or private part and her hymen had an old rupture. Victim was assessed to be between 17 to 18 years of age at one place and at another place, it has been mentioned less than 20 years. Doctor has not opined any evidence of rape, but

has stated that sexual intercourse took place. It has been submitted that the appellant has suffered sentence for little more than 7 & ½ years since his custody from 20.02.2014. Therefore, he may be enlarged on bail by suspending his sentence during pendency of this appeal.

4. Learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer. He submits that the FIR was lodged by the victim's father (PW-4) on the very next date i.e. 07.02.2014 after his daughter could not be found. The prosecution case as made out in the FIR that the victim was abducted in a Scorpio, stands corroborated by the other prosecution witness like PW-2 who claims to have heard from Ram Kumar Yadav and Binod Sahu that 6-7 persons abducted the victim from Scorpio. Victim has also stated in her deposition that after being taken to Odisha, she was raped by the appellant herein which stands confirmed by the medical opinion of the doctor (PW-6). Therefore, appellant may not be enlarged on bail.

5. 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 including the period of custody undergone by the appellant till date. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances noted above and that the appellant has remained in custody for 7 & ½ years against the maximum sentence of ten years, we are inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail by suspending his sentence during pendency of this appeal. Accordingly, Appellant Seikh Imran shall be released on bail, during pendency of this appeal, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 221/2014 with the condition that the appellant and his bailors shall not change their address or mobile nos. without permission of the learned Trial Court. I.A. No. 4157/2021 is allowed.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J) Ranjeet/