Jharkhand High Court
Md. Sahnawaz Haider vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 75 of 2021
Md. Sahnawaz Haider --- --- 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. Nikhilesh Kr. Chatterjee, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, A. P.P
---
06 / 17.11.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Nikhilesh Kumar Chatterjee
and learned A.P.P Mrs. Nehala Sharmin on the prayer for suspension of
sentence of this appellant made through I.A. No. 5278 / 2021.
2. The sole appellant along with Sonu Ansari @ Imran Ansari and Sunny
@ Arman stand convicted for the offence punishable under sections 354 and
376 (DA) of the Indian Penal Code and sections 6 and 8 of POCSO Act, while
co-accused Sunny @ Arman apart from his conviction under the aforesaid
section, has also been found guilty under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code
by the impugned judgment dated 23.02.2021 passed in POCSO Case No.
85/2020 by the Court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-IV-cum-
Special Judge (POCSO), Ranchi and all the convicts have been sentenced to
undergo R.I for life which shall mean imprisonment for remainder of their
natural life with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and default sentence under section
376(DA) of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced to undergo R.I for
twenty years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and default sentence under section 6 of
POCSO Act. Apart from this, convict Sunny @ Arman has also been sentenced
to undergo R.I for five years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and default sentence
under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, by the impugned order of sentence
dated 26.02.2021. No separate sentence has been awarded under section 354 of
the Indian Penal Code and section 8 of POCSO Act, in view of the provisions
of section 42 of POCSO Act.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the case of the
Informant / mother of the victim (PW-2), when she came back to home from
her job, her daughter was found missing on 05.05.2020 at 3.00 pm. It is
submitted that later on, offences of sexual nature were added. It is further
pointed out that the victim (PW-3) has been declared hostile on the point of
identification of the present appellant during trial. Father and sister of the victim
(PWs-4 & 5) have also turned hostile on the point of identification of the
accused`. Though forensic evidence has been adduced in the form of FSL
Report (Ext.4 series), as per which, presence of male DNA was found on the
undergarment i.e. panty of the victim, but there were no reference sample.
Further, gauze piece cuttings of all the three accused persons including this
appellant did not match with the male DNA found on the undergarment of the
victim. Ext.-B/1 was blood gauze piece cutting of this appellant. It has also
come during trial from the prosecution witnesses that the victim appeared
before the police station along with this appellant. The doctor (PW-1) who
examined the victim and adduced the report of the Medical Board (Ext.1) has
found no sign of rape and no sign of struggle or injury on the body or private
parts and hymen was old torn. The victim was assessed between 15-16 years, as
per radiological examination. It is submitted that in such circumstances,
continued incarceration would be a travesty of justice as there are no materials
to sustain conviction. Therefore, he may be enlarged on bail as the appellant is
in custody since 07.05.2020.
4 Learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer.
5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties
and taken note of the materials relied upon from the lower court records. On
consideration of materials on record which show that the victim has been
declared hostile on the point of identification of this appellant and further,
father and sister of the victim (PWs-4 & 5) have also turned hostile during trial
and the Doctor (PW-1) who adduced the Medical Report (Ext.1) has found no
sign of rape or struggle or injury on her body or private parts of the victim, we
are inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail by suspending his sentence during
pendency of this appeal. Accordingly, Appellant Md. Sahnawaz Haider 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 Judicial Commissioner-IV-cum-Special
Judge (POCSO), Ranchi in POCSO Case No. 85/2020 with the condition that
the appellant and his bailors shall not change their address or mobile nos.
without permission of the learned Trial Court and Appellant and his bailors
shall also furnish their Aadhar Card before the learned Trial Court at the time of
his release. I.A. No. 5278 / 2021 stands disposed of.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J)
Ranjeet/
