Jharkhand High Court
Ashish Tirkey vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 468 of 2020
Ashish Tirkey --- --- 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. Gaurang Jajodia, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Shekhar Sinha, Special P.P.
---
05 / 14.06.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Gaurang Jajodia and Mr.
Shekhar Sinha, learned Special P.P for the State on the prayer for suspension of
sentence made by this appellant through I.A. No. 4091/2020.
The sole appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under
Sections 376 of I.P.C by the impugned judgment dated 11.02.2020 rendered in Sessions
Trial No. 43 of 2017 by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Lohardaga
and has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of
Rs. 10,000/- under Section 376 of I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine further
sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months by the impugned order of
sentence.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecutrix (P.W-3)
is a student of B.A. As per her own case, she was for the first time subjected to
forcible sexual intercourse in June, 2014 and physical relationship continued between
the victim and the appellant with the knowledge of the family members till
September, 2016, as is borne from the statement of P.W-2, cousin sister and P.W-4,
mother. The case has been instituted after two years of the occurrence on the alleged
ground that the appellant refused to marry her after continued physical relationship
for two years till September, 2016. P.W-4, mother of the victim has also stated that
she had no objection to their relationship before the case was instituted, but since he
refused to marry her, the case was instituted. P.W-1 Doctor has found no evidence of
recent sexual activity, nor any internal or external injury upon her. Medical Report is
Ext.-A. The entire case of the prosecutrix does not establish any act of forcible sexual
intercourse, rather at best, it could be a case of consensual physical relationship
between the two adults knowing fully well the consequences of their acts. Therefore,
appellant, who is about 23 years old, may be granted the privilege of suspension of
sentence, otherwise his life and career would be ruined.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. He submits that as per
the case of the Informant (P.W-2), she was called to nearby pond upon threat of
committing suicide and then subjected to force sexual intercourse. A false assurance
of marriage was given at the outset which the appellant did not fulfil. Therefore, there
was no voluntary consent on the part of the victim in terms of Section 90 of I.P.C. As
such, appellant is liable for his deliberate acts and may not be enlarged on bail.
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. As
per the case of the informant, prosecutrix was studying in B.A and after the first
sexual intercourse in 2014, the same continued till 2016 with the knowledge of the
family members, as per the statement of P.W-4, mother of the victim also. The
Medical Officer has not found any internal or external injury nor any evidence of
recent sexual activity on physical examination of the victim.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to
enlarge the appellant on bail by granting him the privilege of suspension of sentence.
Accordingly, appellant, above named, 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 Sessions
Judge-I, Lohardaga in connection with Sessions Trial No. 43 of 2017 with the
condition that the appellant and his bailors shall not change their address or mobile
number without permission of the learned Trial Court.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J)
jk/
