Jharkhand High Court
Nishant Soni vs State Of Jharkhand on 23 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 311 of 2020
1. Nishant Soni
2. Shashank Soni --- --- Appellants
Versus
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 B.M. Tripathy, Sr. Advocate,
Nutan Kumari Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Shekhar Sinha, Spl. P.P
---
03 / 23.06.2021 Heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Mr. B.M. Tripathy,
assisted by Ms. Nutan Kumari Sharma and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned Spl. P.P
for the State on the prayer for suspension of sentence made through I.A. No.
2016/2021.
Both these appellants stand convicted for the offence punishable under
Sections 366 and 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code by the impugned judgment
dated 24th February, 2020 passed in Sessions Trial No. 82 of 2009 by the Court
of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Hazaribag. They have been sentenced to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 12 years with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each
and a default sentence each under Section 376 (2) (g) of I.P.C and further
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and a
default sentence each under Section 366 of I.P.C by the impugned order of
sentence dated 4th March, 2020.
Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submits that the date of
occurrence, as per the prosecution case, is 06.11.2006 when reportedly the
victim was kidnapped by these two appellants and four others and thereafter,
these two appellants took her to Delhi where she was repeatedly subjected to
forcible sexual intercourse. She alleges that she tried to flee away by catching a
wrong bus which took her to Ajmer, but there also the appellant, Nishant Soni
followed her and both of them were caught by the police. Her family members
were informed by the police at Hazaribag and thereafter, they took her to
Hazaribag on furnishing bond. It is submitted that the prosecutrix, PW-4 in her
deposition, has stated that she did not raise alarm when she was dragged into
the vehicle and even though, she was travelling by a train for two days from
06.11.2006 to 08.11.2006 she did not raise any alarm though she twice went to
the washroom. The mother of the victim P.W. 3 has stated that Ajmer police
called her on 21st November, 2006 and thereafter the girl was brought to
Hazaribagh, but her daughter did not speak anything till 30.11.2006. The FIR
was lodged after huge unexplained delay on 07.12.2006. It is submitted that the
Investigating Officer being a lady namely, Kusum Pathak found the case untrue
and submitted final form bearing no. 10/2007 on 30.04.2007. The Investigating
Officer, in her deposition, has stated that the Informant and her mother were
demanding Rs. 10.00 lakhs from the accused persons and stated that if their
demand is not fulfilled, they will implicate the accused persons in a false case.
Learned Court however did not accept the final form and took cognizance of the
offences against all six accused persons. The Medical Officer (PW-5), who
examined the victim on 07.12.2006, found her age to be 18 years. There were
no external or internal injuries on the body of the victim. No spermatozoa was
found on vaginal swab. She stated that no opinion of rape could be given on
such finding. It is submitted that learned Court however proceeded to convict
these two appellants and acquitted the rest four other accused persons of the
charges. It is submitted that whole prosecution story is false and none of the
prosecution witnesses, such as, victim and her mother could substantiate the
charges, whereas the statement of the Investigating Officer (P.W. 7) completely
demolishes the prosecution case. P.Ws. 1 and 2 have turned hostile. In these
circumstances, appellants may be enlarged on bail by granting them the
privilege of suspension of sentence.
Learned Special Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. He
submits that the prosecutrix seems to have been dragged into a vehicle by the
accused persons and thereafter taken on a train from Ranchi to Delhi and
therefore, she could not resist or raise cries. The victim has also stated that
while one of the appellants was sleeping and other was away, she tried to flee
away on a bus which wrongly took her to Ajmer where she was caught with the
appellant, Nishant by the police. Therefore, appellants may not be enlarged on
bail.
We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the
parties and taken into note the relevant materials relied upon by them from the
Lower Court Records. It appears from the materials on record that the police
submitted final form finding the case untrue. It further appears that the victim
though claims to have been kidnaped on 6th November, 2006 and was taken to
Delhi and thereafter she fled away to Ajmer from Delhi but did not raise any
alarm though the train and bus were full of passengers. The Medical Officer
(P.W. 5) has assessed her age to be 18 years and not found any internal or
external injury on her body. Though the girl was brought from Ajmer by her
mother after being informed, but the F.I.R was registered after considerable
delay on 7th December, 2006.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are inclined to enlarge the
appellants on bail by granting them the privilege of suspension of sentence.
Accordingly, appellants, named above, shall be released on bail, during
pendency of this appeal on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of
learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Hazaribag in connection with Sessions
Trial No. 82 of 2009 with the condition that the appellants and their bailors shall
not change their address or mobile number without permission of the learned
Trial Court.
Consequently, I.A. No. 2016/2021stands disposed of.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J)
Jk/
