Jharkhand High Court
Guddu Singh @ Guddu Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 30 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 51 of 2018
Guddu Singh @ Guddu Kumar Singh ....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. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P
---
03/30.06.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, and Mr.
Saket Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the prayer
for suspension of sentence made on behalf of this appellant through I.A. No.
2699 of 2021.
Sole appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under
Sections 376(2)n and 417 of the Indian Penal Code by the impugned judgment
dated 07.11.2017 passed in Sessions Trial No. 166 of 2016 by the Court of
learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-F.T.C., Bokaro and has been sentenced to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under
Section 376(2)n of I.P.C and further sentenced to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 417 of
I.P.C. of I.P.C by the impugned order of sentence dated 10.11.2017.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the case of the prosecutrix
(P.W.5) is that on assurance of marriage, the appellant indulged in sexual
intercourse with her, though she is disabled. However, during trial the
prosecutrix (P.W.5) aged about 22 years admitted that on inducement of
marriage, he continued sexual intercourse for 4 to 5 months, but when the
accused-appellant did not fulfil the promise of marriage, then the case has been
filed. During this period, they had gone to Katras Gyatri Mandir in Sector-9 and
only upon the misguidance of one relative, appellant escaped and did not
perform the rituals of marriage. The first incidence of sexual intercourse took
place at her house, which she narrated to the mother also, but the relationship
continued because of his assurance of marriage. It is submitted that the mother
of the victim (P.W.1) has stated during trial that both the victim and the
appellant were living as husband and wife for 3 to 4 years and had sexual
relationship but when he refused to marry her, the instant case was lodged. He
has submitted that prosecution witness nos. 2, 3 and 4 have turned hostile. The
doctor (P.W.6), who examined the victim, has found no sign of recent sexual
intercourse neither any injury except an abrasion on the breast. It is submitted
that appellant has remained in custody since 10th May, 2016 i.e., more than 5
years by now. Therefore, appellant who is 27 years old, may be enlarged on bail
by granting him the privilege of suspension of sentence.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. He
submits that on assurance of marriage, the victim has been cheated right from
the beginning and sexual intercourse was performed by the appellant, though
the victim being a disabled, resisted. Therefore, ingredients of Section 376(2)
(n) is made out. Therefore, appellant 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 statement of prosecutrix that the
sexual relationship between them continued for 4 to 5 months, whereas P.W.1,
mother of the prosecutrix has stated that the appellant and the victim lived as
husband and wife for 3 to 4 years and had sexual relationship but only when he
refused to marry, the case was instituted. The doctor, who examined her has
found no sign of recent sexual intercourse. Appellant has been in custody for
more than 5 years by now.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are inclined to
enlarge the appellant on bail by granting him the privilege of suspension of
sentence. Accordingly, appellant, named above, 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-II-F.T.C., Bokaro in
connection with Sessions Trial No. 166 of 2016 with the condition that the
appellant and his bailors shall not change their address or mobile number
without permission of the learned Trial Court.
Consequently, I.A. No. 2699 of 2021 stands disposed of.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J)
Jk/
