Jharkhand High Court
Ashma Khatoon @ Gudiya vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 389 of 2020
Ashma Khatoon @ Gudiya --- --- Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
---
For the Appellants: Mr. Awanish Shankar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Shekhar Sinha, Spl. P.P
---
04 / 20.10.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Awanish Shekhar,
nominated by High Court Legal Services Committee and learned Special P.P
Mr. Shekhar Sinha on the prayer for suspension of sentence of this appellant
made through I.A. No. 3947/2020.
2. This appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under
sections 370, 366(A) and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code while other accused
Veera Singh @ Binder Singh has been held guilty for the offence punishable
under sections 370, 120(B) and 496 of the Indian Penal Code and other accused
Ali Hussain and Rugan Mahto were acquitted of the charges by the impugned
judgment dated 24.07.2018 passed in Sessions Trial No. 71/2017 by the Court
of learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st, Ramgarh and both the convicts have
been sentenced to undergo R.I for ten years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and
default sentence each under section 370 of the Indian Penal Code; this appellant
has been further sentenced to undergo R.I for five years with a fine of Rs.
3,000/- and default sentence under section 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code
while co- convict Veera Singh has been further sentenced to undergo R.I for
five years with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- under section 496 of the Indian Penal Code
and no separate sentence has been imposed under section 120(B) of the Indian
Penal Code, by the impugned order of sentence dated 27.07.2018. All the
sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Informant is the
mother (PW-6). As per her written report, her daughter aged 16 years was
allured for immoral trafficking and married to one aged person, other convict
Veera Singh of Sujuma, Kurushetra, Haryana and in lieu of marriage, the
accused persons received Rs. 60,000/-. It is contended that the story of
allurement is concocted since the written report of the mother of the victim and
her deposition shows that she has given consent to take her daughter for
employment. She had stated in her deposition that she had gone with her
daughter and remained with her whenever she went. The case has been
instituted as an afterthought. According to the Informant, she knows the
appellant as she lives in front of her house. She has also stated that person of
her village including herself and the appellant used to go outside for earning
livelihood. It is submitted that the case of the prosecution is based on the story
put up by the Informant. Other prosecution witnesses are hearsay. Therefore,
appellant may be enlarged on bail as she had remained in custody for about four
years and four months against the maximum sentence of ten years awarded by
the impugned order of sentence.
4. Learned Special P.P has opposed the prayer. He submits that on the basis
of raid, appellant along with her two accomplices were arrested after institution
of the FIR. On the basis of confession of the appellant, an amount of
Rs. 54,000/- was recovered. This part of confessional statement of this appellant
leading to recovery of the amount has been proved during trial as Ext.4. Seizure
list witnesses such as PW-3 and PW-9 have affirmed the seizure. It is further
submitted that the victim was recovered from a place in Haryana and other
convict Veera Singh was also arrested on 03.03.2017. The report of the doctor
(PW-5) who examined the girl on 06.03.2017 shows that her hymen was torn
and as per her statement, last incidence of forcible sexual intercourse was
committed on 28.02.2017. Therefore, appellant who has indulged in immoral
trafficking of a minor girl, may not be enlarged on bail.
5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties
and taken note of the facts and circumstances including the period of custody
undergone by the appellant. Having regard to the facts and circumstances noted
above and that on the basis of confession of the appellant, recovery of Rs.
54,000/- was made and that the victim was also recovered along with other
convict Veera Singh from Haryana, we are not inclined to enlarge the appellant
on bail, at this stage. Accordingly, her prayer for bail is rejected.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J)
Ranjeet/
