Jharkhand High Court
Fulmoney Surin vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 2214 of 2017
Fulmoney Surin, w/o late Tetra Munda, r/o village-Manmani, PO & PS-
Torpa, District-Khunti ......Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
---------------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
For the Appellant : Mr. Sabyasanchi, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar, APP
---------------
Order No. 09/ Dated: 08th February 2022
I.A. No. 2787 of 2020
This matter has been assigned to this Bench by an order dated
24th August 2021 passed on the administrative side by Hon'ble the Chief
Justice, High Court of Jharkhand.
2. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to RI for ten years
and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under section 370(4) IPC and RI for seven years
and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under section 363 IPC, with default stipulations to
undergo SI for six months on each counts.
3. In Sessions Trial Case No. 78 of 2016, Fulmoney Surin and
Seikh Ajhar were put on trial. The learned trial Judge held that the
prosecution failed to establish any of the charges under sections 363, 370,
371, 372 and 373 IPC against Seikh Ajhar and therefore acquitted him of the
aforesaid charges. As noticed above, the appellant was convicted and
sentenced under sections 363 and 370(4) IPC.
4. In paragraph no. 8 of the judgment in Sessions Trial Case
No. 78 of 2016, the learned trial Judge has referred to and discussed
evidence of the victim (hereinafter referred to as 'X') and her mother. PW3
who is the mother of 'X' has stated that she was told by the villagers that her
daughter had gone to the house of Fulmoney Surin at village-Manmani and
thereafter she was taken to Delhi. She further stated that police brought her
daughter back from Delhi and on return from Delhi her daughter told her
2 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.2214 of 2017
that Fulmoney Surin had taken her away to Delhi and got her engaged in
domestic work on the promise that she would get Rs. 3,000/- per month.
PW3 has further stated that on her return from Delhi her daughter however
did not bring any money and she was not paid for the domestic work in
which she was engaged. This witness had no occasion to see the appellant
and therefore she has admitted in the Court that she cannot identify her. 'X'
who was examined as PW4 was declared hostile at the instance of the
prosecution. She stated in the Court that the appellant took her alongwith
four other girls to Delhi for doing domestic work however she could not
remember name of other four girls. She further stated that she had informed
her address to her cousin sister Nomita and that her mother had lodged a
missing report with the police. She has identified the accused in the dock
and said that she had taken her away to Delhi.
5. To constitute ingredients of the offence under sub-section 4 to
Section 370 IPC, the prosecution is required to establish by leading cogent
and convincing evidence that the accused practiced fraud or deception upon
the victim for the purpose of exploitation. In her evidence, 'X' has nowhere
stated that by playing fraud or deception she was taken to Delhi by the
appellant. We are not scrutinising her evidence laid during the trial for the
reason that the appeal is pending final hearing, but, prima-facie we find that
the ingredients of section 370 (4) IPC are not present in the evidence of 'X'.
6. The custody report tendered by the learned APP indicates that
the appellant has remained in custody for more than five years and four
months. That is to say, she has remained in custody for more than half of the
sentence awarded to her in Sessions Trial Case No. 78 of 2016.
7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are inclined to
suspend the sentence awarded to the appellant in Sessions Trial Case No. 78
of 2016.
8. Accordingly, the appellant, above-named, shall be released on
bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned District &
Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti in connection with Sessions Trial Case
No. 78 of 2016 with a further condition that whenever Criminal Appeal
(DB) No. 2214 of 2017 is posted for hearing she would make necessary
3 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.2214 of 2017
arrangement for arguing this criminal appeal and not seek any
unnecessary adjournment.
9. I.A. No. 2787 of 2020 stands allowed.
10. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Court concerned
and the concerned Jail Superintendent through "Fax".
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
Sudhir/Tanuj/
