Jharkhand High Court
Bipin Chandra Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 622 of 2020
Bipin Chandra Mahto --- --- 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. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, A. P.P
---
06 / 22.12.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Sanjay Kumar and learned
A.P.P. Mr. Vinit Kumar Vashistha on the prayer for suspension of sentence of
this appellant made through I.A. No. 6320 / 2021.
2. The sole appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under
section 376(2) (n) (i) of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of POCSO Act by
the impugned judgment dated 02.12.2019 passed in Children Case No. 08/2016
by the Court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-IV-cum-Special
Judge (POCSO), Ranchi and has been sentenced to undergo R.I for ten years
with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and a default sentence under section 376 (2) (n) (i) of
the Indian Penal Code and has been further sentenced to undergo R.I for twenty
years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and a default sentence under section 6 of
POCSO Act by the impugned order of sentence of the same date.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is contradiction as to
the age of the victim in the statement of prosecution witnesses. The victim /
Informant (PW-1) and mother of the victim (PW-3) says that the victim was
aged 16 years; uncle of the victim (PW-4) has stated that the victim was aged
18-19 years, whereas the doctor (PW-9) has assessed the age of the victim to be
16-17 years on radiological examination on 03.02.2016 after two days of the
occurrence. The doctor who adduced the medical report (Ext.2) has not found
any external or internal injury on her private part and hymen was old torn. It is
submitted that the appellant was also a juvenile and therefore, has been tried by
the Children's Court. He has been in custody since 02.12.2019 i.e. slightly more
than two years. It is submitted that the prosecution case of forcible sexual
intercourse with a minor has not been substantiated by the medical evidence.
Moreover, in view of the assessment of age made by the doctor also, the benefit
of plus two years would go to the accused. As such, appellant 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 victim, a
minor of 16-17 years of age, as per the doctor (PW-9), though was not found to
have external or internal injury, but examination of her private part revealed
that she may have undergone sexual intercourse as alleged on the part of the
appellant. Prosecution witnesses i.e. victim (PW-1), PW-2, father, PW-3,
mother and PW-4, uncle as also the villagers (PWs-5 & 6) have supported the
occurrence. As such, appellant may not be enlarged on bail, at this stage.
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. Materials on record show that the doctor (PW-9) who examined the
victim two days after the occurrence on 03.02.2016 did not find any external or
internal injury and hymen was old torn and as per her assessment, age of the
victim was 16-17 years, whereas there is contradiction in the statement of the
prosecution witnesses i.e. the victim (PW-1), PW-3, mother and PW-4, uncle as
to the age of the victim. Having regard to the totality of the facts and
circumstances and also medical evidence on record, we are inclined to enlarge
the appellant on bail by suspending his sentence during pendency of this appeal.
Accordingly, Appellant Bipin Chandra Mahto 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 Additional Judicial Commissioner-IV-cum-Special Judge (POCSO),
Ranchi in Children Case No. 08/2016 with the condition that the Appellant and
his bailors shall not change their address or mobile nos. without permission of
the learned Trial Court and Appellant and his bailors shall also furnish their
Aadhar Card before the learned Trial Court at the time of his release. I.A. No.
6320 / 2021 stands disposed of.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J)
Ranjeet/
