Jharkhand High Court
Ranjeet Mehta @ Ranjeet Kumar @ ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 397 of 2020
Ranjeet Mehta @ Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Kumar Mehta ....Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
For the Appellant : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Lily Sahay, A.P.P
---
07/28.07.2022 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh
and Mrs. Lily Sahay, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the
prayer for suspension of sentence made by this appellant through I.A. No. 800
of 2022.
Sole appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under
Sections 363 & 366-A of I.P.C and Section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 by the
impugned judgment dated 04.03.2020 passed in Spl. POCSO Case No. 37 of
2019 by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Cum Spl. Judge,
POCSO Act, Hazaribag and has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and default sentence
under Section 8 of POCSO Act; Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years with a fine
of Rs. 5,000/- and default sentence under Section 366A of IPC and Rigorous
Imprisonment for 7 years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and default sentence under
Section 363 of I.P.C, by the impugned order of sentence dated 13.03.2020.
All the sentence have been ordered to run concurrently.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are apparent
contradictions in the statement of the informant-father (P.W.-3) as also the
whole prosecution story. The victim (P.W.1) has stated that after her recovery,
F.I.R was instituted on 11th July, 2019 relating to the incidence of night of 10th
July, 2019. The informant-father of the victim, however, has not made any
mention of this fact in the F.I.R. The whole story of kidnapping and procuration
for minor girl for illicit purposes is not credible since as per victim, she had
gone out of the house in the night and thereafter she was taken on motorcycle
by the sole appellant without any aid and assistance of any other accused. As a
matter of fact, the victim also says that at the house of brother-in-law of the
appellant, there was a quarrel pursuant thereto, the brother-in- law of the
appellant called her father. Thereafter her father, brother, maternal uncle and
grandfather came to take her. None of the other prosecution witnesses like the
informant father (P.W.3) or the mother (P.W.2) or the uncle (P.W.5) have
stated that they had seen the incidence of kidnapping of the victim. The doctor
(P.W.7), who examined the victim on 12th July, 2019 within 48 hrs. of the
incidence, has not found any evidence of external and internal injury and no
spermatozoa was seen in the vaginal smear. Therefore, no definite opinion of
rape could be given. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is
contradiction in victim's statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C (Ext.-1) and
in her deposition. It is submitted that the appellant who is a married person, has
remained in custody for more than 3 years by now. The entire case has been
lodged because of some dispute on the issue of payment in respect of Auto
Rikshaw, which appellant used to drive. Therefore, appellant may be enlarged
on bail by suspending the sentence.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. She
submits that it has come in the evidence that the appellant had earlier also tried
to forcibly take away the victim. She was only 14 years of age and studying in
Class-VII at the relevant point of time.
We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties
and taken note of the materials borne from the Lower Court Records.
Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances, the
contradiction in her statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C (Ext.-1) and in
her deposition and also the fact that the appellant is in custody since more than
3 years by now, we are inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail by suspending
the sentence. Accordingly, appellant, above-named, shall be released on bail,
during 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 Additional Sessions Judge-I, Cum Spl. Judge, POCSO
Act, Hazaribag in connection with Spl. POCSO Case No. 37 of 2019, subject to
the condition that the appellant and his bailors shall not change their address or
mobile number without permission of the trial court and the appellant and his
bailors shall also furnish their Aadhar Card before the learned Trial Court at the
time of his release. The instant I.A stands disposed of.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J)
jk/
