Jharkhand High Court
Mainuddin Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 April, 2023
1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 70 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 70 of 2023
------
Mainuddin Ansari ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
--------
For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, Addl.P.P.
--------
Order No. 03: Dated: 18 April, 2023
th
Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.
I.A. No. 1393 of 2023
The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf
of the appellant with a prayer to enlarge them on bail during the
pending of this appeal which has been preferred against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.12.2022 and
17.01.2023 respectively passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO
Act, Garhwa, in POCSO Case No. 35 of 2016 arising out of
Ramkanda P.S. Case No. 29 of 2016, whereby and whereunder the
appellant has been convicted under section 8 of the POCSO Act and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 04 (four) years and to pay a fine of Rs.
10,000/- out of that 50% of fine amount was directed to be paid to
the prosecutrix/victim and in default of payment of the fine the
accused was further directed to undergo S.I. for one year.
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted
that charges leveled against the appellant was that he had tried to
commit offence of sexual assault upon the victim P.W. 4 but the
charge could not be substantiated convincingly in the light of the
depositions of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution
in view of the admitted fact of the prosecution that the appellant is
cousin of the victim P.W. 4 and admittedly, there was a landed
property dispute between both of them as deposed in para 11 of
2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 70 of 2023
cross examination of P.W. 4. It has also been pointed out that it is an
admitted case of the prosecution that a panchayati was convened
after the alleged occurrence but since the matter could not be
resolved, the case was instituted and in this backdrop it is submitted
on behalf of the appellant that false case has been instituted because
of the landed property dispute which was likely to be resolved in
the panchayati and therefore panchayati was convened not because of
the alleged sexual offence but to resolve the landed property dispute
and the entire allegations are false and fabricated and this defence
has been taken in the suggestion of the deposition of P.W. 2 who
was the father of the victim vide para 4 in the cross examination.
Further, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant also pointed upon the depositions of D.W. 1 and D.W. 2
who are the independent witnesses and co-villagers, did not support
the case of the prosecution at all. Further, it has also been pointed
out that no any kind of overt act has been attributed and
substantiated during the course of the trial as envisaged within the
definition of sexual assault of section 7 of the POCSO Act in order
to prove the charges of the offence punishable u/s 8 of POCSO Act
and therefore the prosecution has failed to prove the charges for the
offence u/s 8 of the POCSO Act and also the learned trial court did
not apply its judicial mind and appreciate the evidences adduced on
behalf of both the parties diligently and had not given due
importance to the depositions of both of them (D.Ws. 1 & 2). The
learned senior counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the
appellant remained in jail for about 7 months and maximum
punishment is five years and this appeal is not likely to be heard in
near future and he is ready to deposit the find amount as awarded
by the learned court below by way of compensation.
On the other hand, learned Addl.P.P. for the State opposed the
contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the
3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 70 of 2023
victim was 15 years old at the time of occurrence and therefore the
appellant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
Having heard the learned counsels for the parties perused the
record of this case.
In the light of the persuasive submissions advanced on behalf
of the appellant, it is found just and proper to enlarge the appellant
on bail during the pending of this appeal and accordingly the
appellant is directed to be enlarged 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 learned Special
Judge, POCSO Act, Garhwa, in POCSO Case No. 35 of 2016 arising
out of Ramkanda P.S. Case No. 29 of 2016, subject to the conditions
as set out u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. and also subject to the condition that
50% of the fine amount (as imposed by the learned court below) i.e.
Rs. 5000/- shall be deposited by appellant in order to give it to the
prosecutrix /victim as awarded by the learned court below without
being prejudice to the rights of his defence.
The learned court below, after deposit of the said fine amount,
will issue the notice to the victim and after proper identification the
said fine amount will be disbursed in favour of victim P.W. 4 by
way of compensation. The money receipt of the fine amount will be
deposited before this Court positively.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 1393 of 2023 gets disposed of.
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 70 of 2023
Lower court record has been received from the court
concerned. Let the case be listed for hearing under the heading "for
hearing" as per seriatim.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
MM
