Jharkhand High Court
Jagarnath Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 24 of 2019
Jagarnath Mahto --- --- 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. K.S. Nanda, Adv.
For the State : Ms. Priya Shrestha, A.P.P.
---
03/02.11.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr. K.S. Nanda and
learned A.P.P. Ms. Priya Shrestha on the prayer for suspension of sentence of
the appellant made through I.A. No.5851 of 2021.
Sole appellant stands convicted for the offences punishable
under Sections 363 and 370(4) of the I.P.C. and Sections 75/81 of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 vide impugned judgment
of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.12.2018 passed in S.T. Case No.
86 of 2017 by the learned court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Simdega and
has been sentenced in the following manner :-
Sl. Offence U/s Sentence
No. Fine Default
1. Sec.363 of R.I. for 05 (five) Rs.5,000/- (five S.I. for 03 (three)
I.P.C. years thousand) months
2. Sec.370(4) R.I. for 10 (ten) Rs.10,000/- (ten S.I. for 03 (three)
of I.P.C. years thousand) months
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the victim
appeared during trial and examined herself as P.W.6. She has categorically
stated that though she had gone along with the appellant to Delhi, but she had
not informed her family members about her going to Delhi. She got wages
when employed in a house @ Rs.10,000/- per month and she was kept
properly. She has not complained of any abuse. It is submitted that at the time
of her deposition she was aged 18 years, though as per the allegation in the
F.I.R. lodged on 5th March 2016 the informant father alleged that she was 15
years of age. Prosecution examined 8 witnesses. Apart from P.W.3 father and
informant, P.W.2 mother and P.W.6; P.W.1 and 4 are hearsay witnesses and
P.W. 5, 7 and 8 are Investigating Officers. The victim has identified her
signature on a defence document marked as Ext.A which is stated to be a
typed application of the victim in which she has stated that she had gone
without informing her parents in search of work and the case was instituted in
her absence as they could not contact her. It is submitted that the appellant had
also been sent to RINPAS for treatment and was discharged after two months
on 30th August 2018 and his mental status examination and psychological
evaluation revealed that he was suffering from "Schizophrenia
Undifferentiated". It is further stated that the appellant has remained in
custody for about 4 years and 2 months since his arrest on 8 th February 2017.
He does not have any criminal antecedent. Therefore, he may be enlarged on
bail by suspending his sentence.
Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer. She submits that the
victim was a minor when she was abducted for the purposes of trafficking and
as per her own admission, she stayed at Delhi as a domestic help for three
years. Therefore, the appellant 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.
Consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and the materials on record referred to above indicate that the victim
had accompanied the appellant without informing her family members and
she was not subjected to any abuse in the house where she worked as a
domestic help. Appellant has been in custody for 4 years and 2 months and it
has been stated that he does not have any criminal antecedent.
Taking into account all the facts and circumstances stated above,
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-I, Simdega in connection with S.T. Case No. 86 of 2017 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.5851/2021 stands disposed of.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
Shamim/ (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J)
