Jharkhand High Court
Aman Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 529 of 2020
Aman Singh .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Through Video Conferencing
For the Appellant : Mr. A.K.Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Anuradha Sahay, A.P.P
---
05/21.09.2021 Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant, Mr. A. K. Kashyap,
assisted by learned counsel Mr. Anurag Kashyap and Ms. Anuradha Sahay, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the prayer for suspension of sentence
made by this appellant through I.A. No. 4407 of 2021.
Sole appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under
Sections 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code and Sections 4/6 of POCSO Act, 2012 by the
impugned judgment dated 20.06.2020 passed in Special POCSO Case No. 2562 of
2018 by the Court of learned Special Judge (POCSO), Jamshedpur and has been
sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and default
sentence under Section 6 of POCSO Act, but no separate sentence has been imposed
under Section 376 (2)(n) of I.P.C and Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 by the impugned
order of sentence dated 20.06.2020.
Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that the victim (P.W.2),
in her Fardbeyan, has stated that she was friendly with the appellant while in school
and after 3 years again got in contact through face book. She was induced to physical
intercourse on the promise of marriage in September, 2017 against her will, which
continued several times. On refusal or ignoring her request, appellant used to threaten
to blackmail her. It is submitted that the primary evidence of the age has not been
submitted on behalf of the victim, but the doctor has opined her to be of 19 years of
age on the date of examination i.e., 03.09.2018 after about one month of the
institution of F.I.R on 4th August, 2018. Age assessment is based on Radiological
examination. The doctor has not given any opinion of forcible intercourse, though as
per his observation she had intercourse earlier. The victim while examining herself as
P.W. 2 has stated that after renewal of her acquaintance through face book, the
relationship converted into love after few months and she went to the house of the
appellant by bunking college on her own. The appellant never made any photo or
video of the victim viral as alleged. It is submitted that mother of the victim (P.W.3)
and father (P.W.4) are at best hearsay witnesses and moreover, the father has stated
that he had no personal knowledge of the occurrence. The mother of the appellant was
also examined as P.W. 3, but she has stated that victim never visited her house. The
Investigating Officer has not obtained any C.D.R containing conversation between the
victim and the appellant or any mobile phone. The appellant is aged 20 years as on the
date of judgment and has been in custody since 5th August, 2018 i.e. next date of
institution of F.I.R i.e., more than 3 years and one month by now. Therefore, appellant
may be enlarged on bail by suspending his sentence, otherwise his career and life may
be ruined, though the prosecution material at best shows consensual physical
relationship between the victim and the appellant.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. It is
submitted that the victim in the F.I.R has stated her age to be 17 years and also during
her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C on 8th August, 2018, and
moreover when she was first subjected to physical intercourse in September, 2017 she
was still younger. She has adduced the Jharkhand Academic Council's Admit-card of
the year 2017 showing her date of birth as 7th June, 2001 though it was marked with
objection. The medical report also shows that she was subjected to intercourse earlier,
though no opinion of forcible sexual intercourse could be given by P.W. 8. Therefore,
appellant may not be enlarged on bail.
We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties
and taken note of the materials relied upon by them from the Lower Court Records,
including the period of custody of the appellant undergone by him. On consideration
of the materials on record including the statement of victim (P.W. 2 ) during trial and
the assessment of her age by the doctor (P.W. 8) as 19 years and that no opinion of
forcible sexual intercourse was rendered by the doctor, who examined her on 3rd
September, 2018, we are inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail by suspending his
sentence during pendency of this appeal. Accordingly, appellant, above-named, shall
be released on bail, during the 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 Special Judge (POCSO), Jamshedpur in connection with
Special POCSO Case No. 2562 of 2018 with the condition that the appellant and his
bailors shall not change their address or mobile number without permission of the
learned Trial Court.
I.A. No. 4407 of 2021 stands allowed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J)
Jk/
