Jharkhand High Court
Ramdeo Oraon vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 2235 of 2017
Ramdeo Oraon --- --- 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: M/s Indrajit Sinha, Akhouri Abinash Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent: Ms. Priya Shreshtha, A.P.P
---
10 / 15.07.2021 Heard learned counsel Mr. Akhouri Abinash Kumar, on instruction of
learned counsel for the Appellant on record Mr. Indrajit Sinha and Ms. Priya
Shreshtha, learned A.P.P on the prayer for suspension of sentence of this
Appellant made through I.A. No. 566/2020.
2. The sole Appellant stands convicted for the offences punishable under
sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code by the impugned judgment dated
06.09.2017 rendered in Session Trial No. 333/2015 by the Court of learned
Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVII-cum-FTC (CAW), Ranchi and has
been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of
Rs. 15,000/- and default sentence, by the impugned order of sentence of the
same date.
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that as per the case of the
Informant (victim) / PW-3, she was waylaid by the appellant while returning
from college on bicycle and taken to the forest where she was subjected to
forcible sexual intercourse on 19.02.2015. As per the father of the prosecutrix
(PW-2), victim was aged 17-18 years, whereas on radiological examination, the
victim has been found to be 20-21 years of age by the doctor (PW-6) who
adduced the medical report (Ext.3) upon examination of the victim on
22.02.2015. However, the Medical Officer has not found any sign of resistance
in the nature of external injury on the body of the victim, though she had
complained that she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse in the forest. It
is submitted that at best, the case could be of immoral physical relationship
between two adults in the prohibited degree of relationship since the appellant
happens to be the uncle of the victim. Since the victim has been found to be
major on radiological examination, the element of forcible intercourse cannot
be inferred. It is further submitted that the appellant has remained in custody
since 22.02.2015 i.e. about six years and five months i.e. more than half
of the custody against the sentence of ten years imposed upon him. It is stated
on instruction that the victim got married and is well settled and there are no
chances of any retaliation on the part of the appellant. Therefore, he may be
enlarged on bail by suspending his sentence.
4. Learned AP.P Ms. Priya Shreshtha has strongly opposed the prayer. She
submits that the victim was examined on 22.02.2015 and injuries were found on
the private parts of the victim. Presence of spermatozoa was also found on
examination of vaginal smear which confirms the act of forcible sexual
intercourse upon the victim by the appellant who happens to be her uncle. The
victim has supported the case made out in the fardbeyan in her statement made
under section 164 of the Cr. P.C before the Judicial Magistrate (PW-8). Other
witnesses such as PW-1 (mother) and PW-7, etc. have also supported the case
of the prosecution. Learned A.P.P submits on instruction that the victim got
married sometime early this year and is well settled. However, appellant does
not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties
and taken note of the relevant materials relied upon by them from the lower
court records as also the period of custody of about six years and five months
undergone by the appellant till date. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and
circumstances and the period of custody undergone by the Appellant, we are
inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail by suspending his sentence during
pendency of this appeal. Accordingly, Appellant-Ramdeo Oraon 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-XVII-cum-FTC
(CAW), Ranchi, in Session Trial No. 333/2015 with the condition that he and
his bailors shall not change their address or mobile nos. without permission of
the learned Trial Court. I.A. No. 566/2020 stands disposed of.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J)
Ranjeet/
