Jharkhand High Court
Sudhir Jaiswal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 63 of 2021
Sudhir Jaiswal --- --- 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. Deepak Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P.
06/23.09.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Deepak Kumar and
Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned A.P.P. on the prayer for suspension of
sentence of the appellant made through I.A. No. 3312 of 2021.
The sole appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable
under section 354,417 and 370(2) of the I.P.C. by the impugned judgment
dated 12.02.2021 passed in Sessions Trial Case No. 260 of 2014 by the
court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Bokaro and has been
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- with a
default sentence under Section370(2) I.P.C.; S.I. for 5 years and a fine of
Rs.5000/- with a default sentence under Section 354 I.P.C and S.I. for 1
years under Section 417 I.P.C. by the impugned order of sentence dated
18.02.2021. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that prosecutrix (P.W.2)
is habitual of falsely implicating innocent persons. As per her case, she
worked for 40 days in an office of Mahila Samiti opened by the appellant
and thereafter she was taken on 24.06.2013 to Ranchi for a meeting along
with two other females. The appellant tried to hand over the custody of
the victim to one person in lieu of Rs.5000/-, with whom the victim
refused to go along with and managed to escape. She returned back to
Bokaro by bus at 9.00 p.m. Next day appellant came and gave Rs.1500/-
for arrears of her salary to her mother. On 26.6.2013 at 3.00 p.m. the
appellant again came and tried to outrage her modesty on which she raised
hulla and then F.I.R was instituted. It is submitted that P.W.3 is the mother
of the victim, who supports her allegation and P.W.4 also says that he
heard hulla raised by P.W.3 while P.W.6, a sweeper lady claims to have
gone with the victim to lodge F.I.R. P.W.7 has turned hostile. However,
defence witness D.W.1 is the other lady, who the victim
alleged had also gone on Bolero from Bokaro to Ranchi, but D.W.1 in her
deposition has flatly denied her allegation of having gone to Ranchi with
her and the appellant. It is submitted that D.W.2 has stated that she had
never gone to the office of the appellant, rather she know him as the
appellant used to sell biscuits etc. by vending. It is further submitted that
other defence witnesses like D.W.3, D.W.4, D.W.5, D.W.6, D.W.7 and
D.W.8, all have stated that the appellant is engaged in selling of biscuit
etc. through vending.
Learned counsel for the appellant has, in particular referred to the
defence exhibits such as Ext. E being a certified copy of the judgment of
acquittal in S.T. Case No. 227 of 2011 lodged by mother of the victim
against her former husband; Ext. H and I, certified copy of F.I.R and
cognizance in Harla P.S. Case No. 41 of 2017 instituted by one Sharad
Kumar against the mother of the victim and two others namely Jahana
Begum and N.K. Sharma which stands disposed of. Ext. A is the judgment
rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bokaro dated
20.12.2018 in C.P. Case No. 1331 of 2013 lodged by this victim against
her father and 4 others including this appellant whereby the accused
persons have been acquitted of the charge under Section 341, 323/34 of
the I.P.C. treating it to be a case of no evidence. It is submitted that the
victim and her mother, both are used to lodging false cases against
innocent persons to blackmail them or settle some grudge. The victim's
mother has more than one husband and she has lodged cases against them.
It is further submitted that the prosecution case in its totality does not
stand on its leg except bald statements by the victim and her mother P.W.3
and P.W.4, whereas D.W.1, the lady who is alleged to have travelled to
Ranchi on a Bolero of the appellant, has completely denied the allegation.
Appellant may therefore be enlarged on bail by suspending his sentence,
otherwise he may suffer incarceration on such unreliable evidence
adduced by the prosecution. Appellant is in custody since 12.02.2021
upon his conviction.
Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer. He submits that the
prosecution story has been duly supported by the victim herself during
trial as P.W.2, P.W.3 her mother, P.W.4 as also P.W.6, the sweeper lady
who had gone with the victim to lodge the F.I.R. Therefore, appellant may
not be enlarged on bail.
We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the
parties and taken note of the materials relied upon by them from the
lower court record including the period of custody undergone by the
appellant. Having considered the facts and circumstances noted above
and that the very lady D.W.1 with whom the victim alleges that she was
taken to Ranchi by the appellant on a Bolero and was being sent for
immoral purposes, has completely denied the allegation and also
instances of other case lodged by the victim against the appellant, her
father and other persons in which they have been acquitted, we are
inclined to grant the privilege of suspension of sentence to the appellant.
Accordingly, the appellant, named above, during the pendency of
this appeal, shall be enlarged on bail 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, Bokaro
in connection with Sessions Trial Case No. 260 of 2014 with the
condition that he and his bailors shall not change their address or mobile
number without permission of the learned Trial Court.
I.A. No. 3312 of 2021 stands allowed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
A.Mohanty
