Jharkhand High Court
Rajesh Choudhary @ Rajesh Singh ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 30 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 95 of 2021
.....
Rajesh Choudhary @ Rajesh Singh Modak --- --- Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. -- --- Respondent
---
CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
The Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Through Video Conferencing
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Anup Kr. Agrawal, Adv.
For the State : Mrs. Priya Shreshtha, A.P.P.
---
05/30.09.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Anup Kr. Agrawal
and learned A.P.P. Mrs. Priya Shreshtha on the prayer for suspension of
sentence of this appellant made through I.A. No.2441 of 2021.
2. Sole appellant stands convicted for the offences punishable
under Sections 376(2)(n) and 366 of the I.P.C. and Section 6 of the POCSO
Act, 2012 vide impugned judgment dated 30.01.2018 passed in S.T. Case
No.414/2013 by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I cum Special
Judge, FTC, Jamshedpur and has been sentenced vide impugned order of
sentence dated 15.02.2018 in the following manner :-
(I) Rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 (ten) years under
Section 366 of the I.P.C.
(II) Rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 (ten) years under
Section 376(2)(n) of the I.P.C.
(III) Rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 (ten) years with a fine
of Rs.15,000/- under Section 6 of POCSO Act.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has
been suffering custody since 15th June 2013 and thereby completed about 8
years and 3 months against the maximum sentence of 10 years awarded under
each of the offences under which he has been convicted. It is submitted that
the victim in her deposition has stated that appellant was known to her for 6
years. She has further stated that she had gone along with the appellant to
Musabani Mandir at 8.00 A.M. and did not raise any alarm when the appellant
had taken her away. The doctor who examined her on 17th June 2013 (P.W.6)
has brought on record the medical report (Ext.3) as per which the victim was
assessed as between 18 + - 1 year, though the examination of private part of
the victim showed that the hymen was recent torn with blood clots. It is
submitted that the materials on record brought by the prosecution, if taken in
totality, shows that the victim who was acquainted with the appellant for
about 6 years was a major and had voluntarily gone with the appellant.
Therefore, appellant may be enlarged on bail by suspending his sentence also
considering the period of custody.
4. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer. As per the case of the
informant father P.W.4 the victim was about 15 years of age and was enticed
by the appellant on 12th June 2013. Later the appellant himself called on 14th
June 2013 and said that the victim is with him. Medical report also shows
forcible sexual intercourse. 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 on record relied upon by them from the
lower court records including the period of custody undergone by the
appellant.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances noted above and
that the appellant has remained in custody for about 8 years and 3 months by
now, 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, FTC, Jamshedpur in connection with
S.T. Case No.414/2013 subject to 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. 2441 of 2021 stands
disposed of.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Shamim/
