Jharkhand High Court
Poonam Prabha Dungdung vs The State Of Jharkhand on 29 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 985 of 2019
---
Poonam Prabha Dungdung --- --- 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. K.S. Nanda, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Niki Sinha, A.P.P.
---
06/29.09.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr. K.S. Nanda and
learned counsel for the State Mrs. Niki Sinha on the prayer for suspension of
sentence made by this appellant through I.A. No.5283 of 2021.
2. This appellant along with Anuj Kullu and Sunny Salim
Dungdung has been convicted vide impugned judgment of conviction dated
3rd June 2019 passed in Special (POCSO) Case No.10/2016 by the court of
learned Additional Sessions Judge-I cum Special Judge (POCSO Act),
Simdega. This appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under
Sections 363/370(4) of the I.P.C. and Sections 23/26 of Juvenile Justice (Care
& Protection) Act, 2000 along with accused Sunny Salim Dungdung while the
other convict Anuj Kullu has been held guilty under Sections 363/370(4) of
the I.P.C., Sections 23/26 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act, 2000
and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. This appellant along with Sunny Salim
Dungdung has been sentenced in the following manner :
Sl.No. Offence U/s Sentence
Fine Default
1. Sec.363 of R.I. for 07 Rs.10,000/- (ten R.I. for 03 (three)
I.P.C. (seven) years thousand) months.
2. Sec.370(4) R.I. for 10 Rs.10,000/- (ten R.I. for 03 (three)
of I.P.C. (ten) years thousand) months.
The other convict namely Anuj Kullu has been sentenced in the
following manner :
Sl.No. Offence U/s Sentence
Fine Default
1. Sec.363 of R.I. for 07 Rs.10,000/- (ten R.I. for 03 (three)
I.P.C. (seven) years thousand) months.
2. Sec.370(4) R.I. for 10 Rs.10,000/- (ten R.I. for 03 (three)
of I.P.C. (ten) years thousand) months.
3. Sec.4 of R.I. for 10 Rs.10,000/- (ten R.I. for 03 (three)
POCSO Act (ten) years thousand) months.
All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the co-convicts
Anuj Kullu and Sunny Salim Dungdung have been enlarged on bail vide order
dated 11th December 2020 and 26th August 2021 passed in Cr.Appeal (DB)
No.5255/2020 and Cr.Appeal (DB) No.684/2019 by the Coordinate Bench of
this Court taking note of the fact and there is apparent inconsistency in the
statement of victim (P.W.2) made during trial regarding rape and that made
under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. before P.W. 4 Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate (Ext.6). It is submitted that the only allegation against this
appellant was that she went along with her to Delhi. The rest of the
prosecution story contains allegations against Anuj Kullu and Sunny Salim
Dungdung. Those two appellants have been enlarged on bail. Therefore, this
appellant, who is a lady, may also be enlarged on bail by suspending the
sentence. The appellant has no criminal antecedent as per the instructions
furnished to the learned counsel for the appellant.
4. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that
immature minor girls are enticed for immoral trafficking by a racket in which
these persons are involved. This person posing herself as an acquaintance of
the victim took her to Delhi from where she was taken by the other accused
Anuj Kullu and Sunny Salim Dungdung for immoral purposes and finally she
was rescued from Gujarat. Therefore, appellant may not be enlarged on bail.
5. 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.
6. Upon consideration of the materials on record and that the other
two convicts Anuj Kullu and Sunny Salim Dungdung have been enlarged on
bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court and that as against this appellant the
only material was that she went along with the victim to Delhi and moreover
she has no criminal antecedent as per the statement of learned counsel for the
appellant, we are inclined to grant the privilege of suspension of sentence to
the appellant during pendency of the appeal. Appellant is directed to be
released 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-I cum Special Judge (POCSO Act), Simdega in
connection with Special (POCSO) Case No.10/2016 with the condition that
the appellant as well as his bailors shall not change their addresses and mobile
numbers, if any, without prior permission of the learned trial court. I.A.
No.5283 of 2021 stands disposed of.
7. Let the name of learned A.P.P. Mrs. Niki Sinha appear in the
cause list henceforth in place of erstwhile A.P.P. Mr. Gouri S. Prasad.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J)
Shamim/
