Jharkhand High Court
Sonu Ansari @ Imran Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 198 of 2021
Sonu Ansari @ Imran Ansari --- --- 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. Jitesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P.
03/25.11.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Jitesh Kumar and
learned A.P.P. Mr. Saket Kumar on the prayer for suspension of sentence
made by the appellant through I.A. No. 5476 of 2021.
The sole appellant along with Md. Sahnawaz Haider 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/- each and default sentence each 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/- each and default sentence each 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.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that case of the
appellant stands on same and similar footing as to the co-convict Md.
Sahnawaz Haider, who has been enlarged on bail by suspending his
sentence vide order dated 17.11.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB)
No. 75 of 2021 by this Court. It is further submitted 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.-B3
was blood positive gauze piece cutting of 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 on such consideration co-convict Md. Sahnawaz Haider
has been enlarged on bail by this Court. Therefore, appellant, who stands
on similar footing may also be released on bail by suspending his
sentence.
Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer.
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 and that case of the appellant
stands on similar footing to that of co-convict Md. Sahnawaz Haider,
who has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 17.11.2021
passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 75 of 2021, we are inclined to
enlarge the appellant on bail by suspending his sentence during
pendency of this appeal. Accordingly, appellant named above shall be
enlarged 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. 5476 / 2021 stands allowed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
A.Mohanty
