Jharkhand High Court
Deoram Soren vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 April, 2023
1 Cr. Revision No. 508 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 508 of 2022
------
Deoram Soren ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Bahamuni Kisku ... ... Opp. Parties
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
--------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indu Shekhar Gupta, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanat Kr. Jha, Addl.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Jagat Kumar Soni, Advocate
Mrs. Anjali Kumari, Advocate
--------
Order No. 09: Dated: 13 April, 2023
th
Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.
I.A. No. 4642 of 2022
The instant interlocutory application has been field by the
petitioner with a prayer to enlarge the petitioner during the pending
of this Criminal Revision which has been preferred against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.03.2022
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Dumka in
Criminal Appeal No. 02 of 2013 whereby and where under the
learned appellate court has affirmed the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 19.12.2012 passed by the learned 1st
Assistant Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 174 of 2007
arising out of Jama P.S. Case No. 23 of 2007 corresponding to G.R.
Case No. 258 of 2007 whereby the petitioner was convicted and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for the
offence u/s 376 of IPC and RI for 06 months for the offence u/s 417
of IPC and fine of Rs. 5,000/- is also awarded to be paid to the
victim by the accused petitioner. It is further directed that sentence
of imprisonment shall run concurrently and in failure to make
payment of fine amount the convict would have to go simple
imprisonment for 3 months separately.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that it is an
admitted case of the prosecution that the victim informant had been
establishing physical relationship consensually under the promise
of marriage for a long period of two years and thereafter it is alleged
that when the petitioner refused to marry with her the case was
instituted for the offence punishable u/s 376/417 of IPC and in this
backdrop it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that this is not a
case for the offence punishable u/s 376 of IPC at all because at the
time of institution of the FIR the victim was major i.e. about 18 years
as evident from the medical examination report which is Ext. 2 as
evident form the deposition of P.W. 9. It has also been pointed out
that when the petitioner refused to get married with the victim a
panchayati was convened but the matter could not be materialized
and then the FIR has been instituted. Further it has been submitted
that in this case the petitioner has surrendered before the learned
court below after the dismissal of the Criminal Appeal on 25.04.2022
and since then the appellant is in custody and as such about one
year he has served the sentence and in pre-conviction period he has
remained in jail for about 05 months and the maximum period of
sentence awarded by the learned court below is five years. This Cr.
Revision is not likely to be heard in near future, and, therefore it is
urged on behalf of the petitioner that let him be enlarged on bail
during the pending of this Criminal Revision.
On the other hand, leanred Addl.P.P. assisted by the learned
counsel of O.P. No. 2 vehemently opposed the prayer of the bails of
the petitioner stating inter alia that the victim was minor at the time
of the first offence which took place two years ago of the date of the
FIR. And it is submitted that although the psychical relationship
was consensual but it is under the promise of marriage and
therefore it is submitted that the petitioner has rightly been
convicted u/s 376/417 of IPC and he does not deserve to be
enlarged on bail. Further, it has also been pointed out that it is a case
of the prosecution where the petitioner refused to marry with the
victim when she was pregnant of 8 months and a female child was
born out of the said physical relationship with the petitioner and in
the maintenance case vide Cr. Misc. Petition No. 125 of 2007, the
maintenance is also awarded to the child to a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per
month by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka, on 27.02.2013
and as such the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarge d on bail.
Having head the parties, perused the records of this case.
In the light of the forceful submission advanced on behalf of
the petitioner it is just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail,
accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousands only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the
satisfaction of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka subject to the
conditions as stated u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. and also subject to the further
conditions that the petitioner will deposit the fine amount of Rs.
5000/- by way of compensation in order to give it to P.W. 8 the
informant without being prejudiced to the right of defense.
Learned court below is directed to issue notice to the P.W. 8
after deposit of the fine amount by the petitioner and after
appearance of P.W. 8 and proper verification the sum of Rs. 5000/-
would be disbursed to the P.W. 8 by way of compensation.
Cr. Revision No. 508 of 2022
The lower court record of this case has been received from the
court below and list the case under the heading "for hearing".
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
MM
