Rajiv Mahto @ Rajiv Kumar Mahato @ ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 4661 Jhar

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                          Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 402 of 2020
            Rajiv Mahto @ Rajiv Kumar Mahato @ Rajib Mahato            ....Appellant
                                            Versus
            The State of Jharkhand                                     ... Respondent
                                       ----

            CORAM:         Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
                          Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
                                       ---
            For the Appellant : Mr. Shishir Suman, Advocate
            For the State       : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P
                                            ---
06/07.12.2021             Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Shishir Suman and

learned A.P.P, Mrs. Vandana Bharti on the prayer for suspension of sentence made by this appellant through I.A. No. 3755 of 2020.

Sole appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of I.P.C. by the impugned judgment dated 15.02.2020 passed in Sessions Trial No. 268 of 2016 by the Court of learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-X-cum-FTC, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 30,000/- and default sentence by the impugned order of sentence dated 20.02.2020.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is a substantial delay in execution of F.I.R on the basis of complaint lodged by the victim (P.W.8) containing allegations of forcible sexual intercourse on the promise of marriage by the appellant. The victim alleged that she had become pregnant, but the appellant refused to marry her and asked her to abort. It is submitted that the Doctor (P.W.9) though has not found any injury on the private part, but it has come in the medical report (Ext.1) adduced by the doctor (P.W.9) that she delivered a baby on 22nd January, 2016. However, there is no corroboration of the paternity of the child with this appellant. The victim was found to be 19 years of age as per Radiological Examination conducted on 19th February, 2016. The appellant has remained in jail custody since 15 th June, 2016 i.e., about 5 and ½ years by now. Therefore, appellant may be enlarged on bail by suspending his sentence.

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer. She submits that the allegations made by the victim are corroborated by the medical evidence adduced by the doctor (P.W.9) and also by other witness like P.W.5, the auto driver, who had taken the victim to the hospital on 1 st January, 2016 along with P.Ws. 2 and 3, father and mother of the victim. P.W. 13, the Investigating Officer has stated that the location of the appellant has been found to be near

the place of occurrence as per the C.D.R. Therefore, appellant may not be enlarged on bail.

We have considered the submission 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 him.

It appears that the F.I.R was lodged on the basis of complaint by the victim after considerable delay. The victim had delivered a baby, as a result of the pregnancy alleged to have been caused on account of forcible sexual intercourse by the appellant with her on the promise of marriage. Appellant has however remained in custody about 5 and ½ years by now, i.e., more than half of the custody, therefore, we are inclined to grant bail to the appellant by suspending the sentence during pendency of this appeal. Accordingly, appellant, above-named, shall be released on bail, during the 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 District & Additional Sessions Judge-X-cum- FTC, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in connection with Sessions Trial No. 268 of 2016, subject to deposit of fine amount. Further conditions that appellant and his bailors shall not change their address or mobile number without permission of the learned Trial Court. Appellant and their bailors shall also furnish photo copy of their Aadhar Card before the learned Trial Court at the time of his release.

I.A. No. 3755 of 2020 stands allowed.

Learned Secretary, DLSA, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur would report whether compensation has been given to the victim as per the Victim Compensation Scheme framed under Section 357-A of Cr.P.C as also directed by learned trial court in the order of sentence. Learned Secretary, DLSA, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur would also enquire whether minor child is in need of care and protection and admissible benefits under Welfare Scheme of the government can be extended to the child.

Let a report be submitted within 4 weeks.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J) Jk/