Sandeep Kerketta vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 4126 Jhar

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                              Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 648 of 2018

        Sandeep Kerketta                                      ---    ---   Appellant
                                            Versus
        The State of Jharkhand                             ---       ---   Respondent
                                             ---

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary

---

                For the Appellant       : Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, Advocate
                For the Respondent      : Mr. Ravi Prakash, A.P.P.

07/01.11.2021         Heard learned counsel for the parties on the prayer for

suspension of sentence of the appellant made through I.A. No.3288 of 2021.

Sole appellant stands convicted for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(i) of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the POCSO Act vide impugned judgment of conviction dated 23.11.2017 passed in Special (POCSO) Case No. 26 of 2016 by the learned court of Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, POCSO Act, Simdega and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and a default sentence under Section 376(2)(i) of the I.P.C. and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and a default sentence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act vide impugned order of sentence dated 28.11.2017.

Appellant has renewed the prayer for suspension of sentence through the instant application. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the medical opinion of the Doctors P.W.6, 7, 8 and 9 though suggests that the victim was below 16 years of age but was sexually active. However, no evidence of recent sexual intercourse was found. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer P.W.12 though has adduced FSL report Ext.-A which shows presence of male human DNA on the undergarments of the victim, but there being no reference sample, the identity of the male could not be established. He submits that P.W.1 father informant, victim P.W.3 and the mother had supported the occurrence, though P.W. 1, 4 and 5 are hearsay witnesses. It is submitted that the appellant has remained in custody since 27th October 2016 and by now completed more than half of the sentence of five years. He was a young boy of 20 years at the time of conviction in November 2017 and now he is aged about 24 years with a future life and career. Earlier

the prayer for suspension of sentence of this appellant was rejected upon consideration on merits on 13th August 2018 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. Therefore, he may be enlarged on bail by suspending his sentence.

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer. He submits that the victim in her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. as well as deposition has supported the Fardbeyan lodged by the informant father alleging forcible sexual intercourse at the hands of the appellant after she was picked up in a Tata Magic vehicle after having offered water from the hand pump to the appellant and others. Victim is a minor with signs of previous sexual intercourse found in the medical examination. Therefore, he may not be enlarged on bail.

We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the materials on record relied upon by them from the lower court records including the period of custody undergone by the appellant.

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances stated above including the period of half of the custody undergone by the appellant, we are inclined to grant the 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. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount, each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, POCSO Act, Simdega in connection with Special (POCSO) Case No. 26 of 2016 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 and shall submit Aadhar Cards at the time of his release. I.A. No.3288/2021 stands disposed of.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J) Shamim/