Jharkhand High Court
Chandan Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 206 of 2020
Chandan Yadav --- --- 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: Mr. Indrajit Sinha and Mr. Kumar Amit, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, A.P.P.
---
05 / 07.06.2021 Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.
Abhay Kumar Tiwari, learned A.P.P for the State on the prayer for suspension
of sentence made by this appellant through I.A. No. 2008/2021.
2. The sole appellant stands convicted for the offence under section 376 of
I.P.C by the impugned judgment dated 18.01.2020 rendered in S.T. No.
55/2016 by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Koderma and has
been sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and
default sentence, vide impugned order of sentence dated 22.01.2020.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the prosecutrix
P.W-5), date of occurrence is 29.12.2015 and the FIR was registered on
07.03.2016 against the appellant and four other accused persons, though only
appellant was charge sheeted. It is submitted that there is no medical evidence
of rape except the statement of the prosecutrix and the statement of PWs 1 & 2-
father and mother of the prosecutrix, PW-3 sister of the prosecutrix and PW-4
brother-in-law of the prosecutrix. Learned counsel for the appellant submits
that P.W.6-Medical Officer who examined her on 17.03.2016 had opined that
confirmation of rape could not be done. However, she was pregnant as urine for
HCG is positive. Medical report is Ext.-2. HCG report was, however not
produced. It is further submitted that the other doctor who claimed to have
examined the victim was not produced during trial. As per the case of the
prosecution, and in particular, statement of the mother of the victim (P.W-2),
prosecutrix was aged 25 years and is a Post Graduate. Medical Officer (P.W-6)
has also opined that she was 23 years of age. It is submitted that the statement
of the prosecutrix also shows that she was having love affair with the accused /
appellant and except the statement regarding forceful physical relationship with
the prosecutrix on 29.12.2015, there is no material evidence of rape against the
appellant. It is submitted that no finding of inducement to obtain consent at the
.2
behest of the appellant has been recorded by the learned Trial Court. It appears
to be a case of consensual relationship between two matured adult fully
understanding the consequences of their acts. It appears that later on,
relationship broke on account of pregnancy and FIR was instituted after four
months of the alleged occurrence. In those circumstances, appellant who is
otherwise a man of means and a person aged about 26 years, may be enlarged
on bail by granting him the privilege of suspension of sentence.
4. Learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer. He submits that the evidence of
the prosecutrix is categorical about the forceful physical intercourse on the
pretext of marriage which the appellant later on resiled from. P.Ws-1, 2, 3 and 4
all have supported the prosecution story. The Medical Officer (P.W-6) has also
opined that the prosecutrix was pregnant, though rape could not be confirmed in
the absence of spermatozoa at the time of her examination. It is submitted that
the appellant has been in custody since 18.01.2000 and therefore, does not
deserve to be enlarged on bail.
5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties
and taken into account the relevant material evidence relied from the lower
court records. It appears from the materials on record that the date of occurrence
is 29.12.2015 and the FIR was instituted on 07.03.2016 alleging forceful
intercourse on the pretext of marriage. As per the statement of P.W-2 mother of
the prosecutrix, prosecutrix is aged 25 years and is a Post Graduate. Even the
Medical Officer (P.W-6) has found her to be aged 23 years and she has not
found any evidence of rape. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of
the considered view that the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail by
granting him the privilege of suspension of sentence. Accordingly, the
appellant- Chandan Yadav, during the pendency of this appeal, shall be
enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of
learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Koderma in connection with S.T. No.
55/2016 subject to the condition that he and his bailors shall not change their
address or mobile nos. without permission of the learned Trial Court.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J)
Ranjeet/
