Jharkhand High Court
Nirdos Topno vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 50 of 2021
.....
Nirdos Topno --- --- Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. -- --- Respondent
---
CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
The Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Through Video Conferencing
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Awnish Shankar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Satish Prasad, A.P.P.
---
03/08.07.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Awnish Shankar
nominated by the High Court Legal Services Committee on the request of the
appellant and learned A.P.P. Mr. Satish Prasad on the prayer for suspension of
sentence made through I.A. No.1663 of 2021.
The sole appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable
under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the I.P.C. and Section 4 and 8 of the
POCSO Act, 2012 by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 31st July 2019 passed in Special (POCSO) Case No.23/2018
by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st -cum- Special Judge,
(POCSO Act), Simdega and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and a default sentence for the
offence punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and further sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs.10,000/-
and a default sentence for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the
POCSO Act.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has
been convicted on erroneous appreciation of the materials on record since the
victim girl P.W.4 could not give any reply during her deposition. There is no
eye-witness to the occurrence except that on the next date the appellant is said
to have been caught while travelling on a Tempo with the victim by the father
informant P.W.1 and others. Appellant is in custody since 22nd July 2018 i.e.
the date of the F.I.R. and has remained in custody for about three years by
now. Therefore, the appellant may be enlarged on bail by granting suspension
of sentence.
Learned A.P.P. has strongly opposed the prayer. He submits that
the appellant has kidnapped the victim girl aged 5 years, kept her in a deserted
school building Tangiya Model School and committed the heinous offence of
rape upon her throughout the night. On the next day while he was fleeing with
the victim, he was apprehended. The victim was subjected to medical
examination on the same date. The Doctor has opined that there is clinical
evidence of sexual assault. The victim's blood stained panty was also
examined and spermatozoa was also found in the vaginal smear. There were
tears of the private parts of the victim. The Medical Board has assessed her
age to be 5-6 years as per the radiological examination. Other witnesses like
P.W.6 have also stated that the appellant was apprehended while trying to flee.
Therefore, the appellant does not deserve any concession of bail at this stage
in view of the seriousness and heinous nature of the crime.
We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and taken into account the material evidence relied upon by them from
the lower court records.
From the materials on record, it is apparent that the victim, who
was aged 5-6 years, has been subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by
kidnapping her by the appellant and the appellant was apprehended on the
next day while trying to flee. In those circumstances, we are not inclined to
enlarge the appellant on bail at this stage by granting suspension of sentence.
Accordingly, I.A. No.1663/2021 is dismissed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Shamim/
