Jharkhand High Court
Kanhaiya Kumar @ Karan Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 58 of 2021
.....
Kanhaiya Kumar @ Karan Kumar --- --- 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. Pradeep Kumar Deomani, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, A.P.P.
---
03/09.06.2021 Prayer for suspension of sentence has been made by the sole
appellant through I.A. No.2477 of 2021.
The sole appellant stands convicted for the offence under
Section 376(2)(n) I.P.C. by the court of learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner-VI, Ranchi by the impugned judgment dated 25th February
2021 passed in S.T. No.450 of 2017 and has been sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs.20,000/- and a default
sentence vide order of sentence dated 27th February 2021.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the case of
the prosecutrix P.W.1 and the informant, the appellant had subjected her to
forcible intercourse on 10th March 2014 and thereafter on the assurance of
marriage physical intercourse continued till 2016. On 5th February 2016 she
was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse at Baba Hotel and thereafter he
refused to marry. It is submitted that the prosecutrix appearing as P.W.1 has
made a statement that she has resided for two years as husband and wife with
the appellant. Sister of the informant P.W.2 has also stated that the informant
was having a love affair with the appellant. The relation of the prosecutrix
was not good with his father who lives at Hazaribag. P.W.3 the Investigating
Officer upon proper inquiries made from the alleged Baba Hotel in her
deposition has stated that she had taken the statement of the employee of Baba
Hotel who said that in the night of 4 th February 2016 he had heard no cries or
unnatural sound from room no.25 where the couple had allegedly stayed.
P.W.4 the doctor who examined the prosecutrix, has found her age to be
between 21-22 years on the basis of radiological examination and there was
no evidence of any recent sexual intercourse. She had no injury on her body
and was not pregnant. P.W.5 Dinesh Singh, an employee of Baba Hotel, has
clearly stated that there was no complaint from any one about any unnatural
activities as alleged. The said room was booked by one Shrikant where two
ladies and a male had stayed. It is submitted that since the prosecutrix is an
adult, at best it could be a case of consensual sexual relationship between two
matured adults. Earlier one Case No.102/2016 instituted by the prosecutrix
was compromised on payment of certain amount of Rs.1.25 Lakh. At the time
of the bail of the appellant during trial also he had paid Rs.1 Lakh. In the
aforesaid facts and circumstances, the appellant who is about 34 years old and
a man of means, may be granted the privilege of suspension of sentence,
otherwise he may be forced to undergo incarceration on the basis of
conviction recorded on such unreliable and inconsistent materials adduced
during the trial. Appellant has been taken into custody upon his conviction.
Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the
prosecutrix was subjected to forcible intercourse on the pretext of marriage.
Therefore, the learned trial court has come to a finding that the consent was
not free rather induced by fraud. As such, appellant does not deserve to be
enlarged on bail.
We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and taken into account the relevant material evidence on record borne
from the lower court records as relied by them.
It appears that the prosecutrix while deposing has herself stated
that she had been residing with the appellant for two years as husband and
wife. The allegation of forcible intercourse in the night on 5 th February 2016
at Baba Hotel does not seem to be supported by the statement of P.W.5 an
employee of the hotel and also the Investigating Officer P.W.3. Medical
Officer has not found any evidence of recent sexual intercourse nor the victim
was pregnant. The prosecutrix has been found to be about 21-22 years of age
and there was no injury.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are inclined to grant
privilege of suspension of sentence to the appellant during pendency of the
appeal. Appellant is directed to be released 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 Judicial Commissioner-VI,
Ranchi in connection with Sessions Trial No.450 of 2017 with the condition
that the appellant as well as his bailors shall not change their addresses and
mobile numbers, if any, without prior permission of the learned trial court.
I.A. No.2477/2021 stands disposed of.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Shamim/
