Jharkhand High Court
Bhola Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1209 of 2017
Bhola Singh --- --- 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. Santosh Kr. Tiwari, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Satish Prasad, A. P.P
---
10 / 23.11.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. on the prayer
for suspension of sentence of this appellant made through I.A. No. 11242 /
2019. Earlier, prayer for suspension of sentence of this appellant was rejected
on merits after consideration of materials from the lower court records vide
order dated 03.04.2018 passed by the Coordinate Bench.
2. The sole appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under
section 376, 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code by the impugned judgment
dated 06.06.2016 passed in Sessions Trial No. 15/2010 by the Court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Garhwa and has been sentenced to undergo R.I
for ten years with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and default sentence under section 376
of the Indian Penal Code; R.I for seven years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and
default sentence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and further
sentenced to undergo R.I for two years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and default
sentence under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code by the impugned order of
sentence dated 20.06.2017. All the sentences have been ordered to run
concurrently.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prayer for suspension
of sentence has been renewed primarily on the ground that the appellant has
completed more than half of the custody since 06.06.2016 i.e. five years, five
months and few days till date. It is submitted that the alleged rape took place on
07.12.2008 but the complaint petition was lodged on 03.07.2009. Thereafter,
FIR was registered at the instance of the victim. Though, victim has been
examined by the doctor (PW-10) on 04.11.2009 who found her age between 16
½ to 17 ½ years, but no sign of rape has been found, though there were
evidence of child birth. The alleged connection of rape and pregnancy with this
appellant has not been conclusively established by any scientific evidence.
Delay is fatal to the prosecution case. Therefore, appellant who is in custody for
little more than five years and five months may be enlarged on bail by
suspending his sentence.
4 Learned A.P.P Mr. Satish Prasad has opposed the prayer. He submits
that the victim was a minor when she was subjected to rape when she had gone
to cut paddy in the fields of the appellant. Later on, panchayati was held and
even after assurance of marriage when appellant refused to marry her, the
victim girl instituted complaint case before the learned court below which was
referred for institution of the FIR under section 156 (3) of the Cr. P.C.
Prosecution witnesses like the victim (PW-6), her mother (PW-1) and father
(PW-4) have stood the test of cross-examination. The doctor (PW-10) has also
found the evidence of child birth, though she was examined after a considerable
time.
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
including the period of custody undergone by the appellant till date. On
consideration of the materials on record including the fact that the complaint
case was filed on 03.07.2009 whereas alleged rape took place on 07.12.2008 i.e.
after 7 months of the alleged incidence and the victim was examined after about
eleven months of the alleged incidence by the doctor (PW-10) obviously with
no sign of rape and that the appellant has undergone custody for more than half
of the sentence i.e. about five years and five months and few days, we are
inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail by suspending his sentence during
pendency of this appeal. Accordingly, Appellant Bhola Singh 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-IV, Garhwa in Sessions Trial
No. 15/2010, subject to deposit of fine amount before the learned court below
and 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. 11242 / 2019 stands disposed of.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J)
Ranjeet/
