Jharkhand High Court
Faizal Ahmad @ Faiz Ahmad vs Vrs on 31 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 541 of 2020
Faizal Ahmad @ Faiz Ahmad ............Appellant
Vrs.
The State of Jharkhand ......... Respondent
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
For the Appellant : Mr. A.K.Kashyap, Sr. Advocate, Anurag Kashyap, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, A.P.P.
03/31.08.2021 Heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant
assisted by learned counsel Mr. Anurag Kashyap and Mr. Manoj Kr.
Mishra, learned A.P.P. for the State on the prayer for suspension of
sentence of the appellant made through I.A. No. 4194 of 2021.
The sole appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable
under section 376 and 323 of the I.P.C by the impugned judgment dated
10.08.2020 passed in S.T. Case No. 111 of 2018 by the court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jamtara and has been sentenced to undergo
R.I. for 10 years and a fine of Rs.5000/- with default sentence under
Section 376 I.P.C. and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year under
Section 323 I.P.C by the impugned order of sentence dated 11.08.2020.
Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the victim -
P.W.5, as per own admission, is a fully grown up woman and a Graduate.
Her deposition coupled with the allegation made in the F.I.R. would show
that she travelled with the appellant to Bangalore by train, stayed there for
two months and then came back to Ranchi where she stayed for 4 months
with the appellant and on one day when the appellant was out, she had
gone to her maternal place at Karmatanr, where after this case has been
instituted. She never cried or protested during her entire travel to
Bangalore and then back to Ranchi and then to Karmatanr or even during
her stay with the appellant in those places for 6 months in total. The
mother of the victim P.W.6 stated during trial that the accused had
informed her that he and the victim were travelling to Bangalore for their
marriage but she did not lodge any F.I.R. The doctor P.W.1, who has
examined the victim on 26.05.2018 and adduced medical report as Ext. 1,
has found no injury upon the victim and neither the victim was pregnant.
She stated that no opinion about the sexual activity could be given by her.
It is submitted that the allegations, if at all taken to be true on the face
value also, would indicate that the victim, a grown up woman indulged in
consensual relationship with the appellant and thereafter lodged this case
alleging breach of promise of marriage. Appellant has remained in
custody since 25.07.2018 i.e., during trial and also since his conviction on
10.08.2020.
Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer and submits that the victim
has been lured into physical relation on the pretext of marriage, as is
obvious from the reading of the F.I.R coupled with the statement of the
victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ext.3) and during trial as P.W.5 duly
supported by her mother P.W.6. Therefore, 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 from the lower court
record including the period of custody undergone by the appellant. On
consideration of materials on record and submissions of learned counsel
for the parties it appears that the victim in her deposition has stated that
she is a Graduate and was in friendly terms with the appellant since 2003
and during the subject period of the F.I.R. She had gone with the
appellant to Bangalore and returned to Ranchi and finally returned back
to her maternal home at Karmatanr. The doctor P.W.1 has not found any
injury on the private part of the victim nor found the victim pregnant. No
opinion of sexual activity could be given by her. The mother of the
victim P.W.6 has stated that the accused informed her that both he and
the victim were travelling to Bangalore for their marriage. Taking into
account the totality of facts and circumstances, 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 Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jamtara
in connection with S.T. Case No. 111 of 2018 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. 4194 of 2021 stands allowed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
A.Mohanty
