Usham Lugun vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 1924 Jhar

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1186 of 2018

              1. Usham Lugun
              2. Moylen Kujur                               ---    ---    Appellants

                                              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 Appellants:       Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Advocate
              For the Respondent:       Ms. Priya Shrestha, A.P.P.
                                         ---
06 / 17.06.2021        Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda and

Ms. Priya Shrestha, learned A.P.P for the State on the prayer for suspension of sentence made by these appellants through I.A. No. 2171 of 2021.

2. Both the appellants stand convicted for the offence punishable under sections 363 and 370 (4) of I.P.C and sections 23/26 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 by the impugned judgment dated 04.06.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Simdega in Sessions Trial No. 142/2016 and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and default sentence under section 363 of of I.P.C. and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and default sentence under section 370( 4) of the I.P.C. by the impugned order of sentence of the same date. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the case of the prosecution regarding involvement of the appellant is not substantiated by the documentary evidence, except oral testimony of the victim and her father (PWs 4 & 3) respectively, whereas DW-1, cousin of the informant has clearly stated that the Accused No. 1 / Appellant No. 2 is her niece and the girl was taken on the request of the Informant. He submitted that the victim has also stated that her sister had gone to Delhi but later on returned. However, she has not been examined in this case. The doctor (PW-5), who examined the victim, has not found any abnormality nor her age was determined. As such, there is no medical proof or documentary proof of the age of the victim that she was only 17 years of age. As per DW-1, the victim was 20 years of age. Apart from that, it is submitted that Appellant No. 1 has remained in custody since 19th May, 2016 i.e. more than half of the custody against the sentence of ten years

awarded under Section 370 of I.P.C and Appellant No. 2 is in custody since 19th September 2016 i.e. little less than half of the custody. Therefore, appellants may be enlarged on bail.

4. Learned A. P. P. has opposed the prayer. She submits that the victim aged about 17 years girl was abducted and sold at Delhi by the accused persons by resorting to immoral trafficking. Therefore, they may not be enlarged on bail.

5. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the relevant materials placed from the lower court records by them. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances and that the Appellant No. 1 has remained in custody for more than half of the custody, we are inclined to enlarge the Appellant no. 1 on bail by granting her privilege of suspension of sentence. Accordingly, Appellant No. 1-Usham Lugun, 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, Simdega in connection with Sessions Trial No. 142/2016, if not suffering sentence or custody in connection with any other case. Learned trial court shall verify whether Appellant No. 1 has completed half of the custody in connection with the instant case before release.

6. However, since the Appellant No. 2 has not completed half of the custody, as on date, we are not inclined to enlarge her on bail, at this stage. Accordingly, her prayer for bail is rejected. I.A. No. 2171/2021 stands disposed of.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J) Ranjeet/