Jharkhand High Court
Chotu Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.587 of 2022
Chotu Pandey ..... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... Respondent
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Prakash Chandra, Advocate
Mr. Virendra Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Neetu Verma, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
--------
04/09.08.2023 I.A. No. 3949 of 2023
The counsel for the appellant is directed to correct the caption of
this IA during the course of the day.
2. The instant interlocutory application has been filed by the
appellant under section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure whereby
and whereunder the appellant has sought for a direction for suspension of
sentence dated 05.07.2022 passed by the learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner-1V-cum-Special Judge, POCSO Court, Ranchi in POCSO
case no.29 of 2018, by which the appellant has been convicted for the
offence under section 8 of the POCSO Act and section 354 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) and in default of payment of fine he
was further directed to undergo SI for 3 months.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
FIR of this case was lodged for the offence under section 376 r/w 511 of
IPC and under section 8,12, 18 of POCSO Act and charge was also framed
in the three those sections. The trial court while passing the judgment of
conviction held the appellant guilty for the offence under section 354 of
IPC and section 8 of the POCSO Act.
4. It is further submitted that PW4 Dr. Seema Gupta who
medically examined the victim. Her age was determined to be 18 to 19
years. As such, no offence under section 8 of the POCSO Act is made out
because the victim was not below the 18 years of age.
5. The learned APP opposed the contentions made by the learned
counsel for the appellant and contended that the victim has supported the
prosecution story.
6. From the perusal of the prosecution version it is found that the
occurrence is shown on 29.03.2018 while this FIR was lodged on
30.03.2018 i.e. on the very next day of the occurrence. The victim was
medically examined by the doctor on 30.03.2018 and her age was
determined 18 to 19 years. As such, the victim was not below 18 years,
therefore, the provisions of the POCSO Act is not attracted.
7. In view of the submissions made, it is a fit case for suspension
of sentence. Accordingly, I.A. No. 3949 of 2023 is allowed.
8. The sentence passed against the appellant shall remain
suspended during pendency of this appeal.
9. In consequence thereof, the appellant is directed to be released
on bail, during the pendency of the Cr. Appeal, on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner-1V-cum-Special Judge, POCSO Court, Ranchi in POCSO
case no.29 of 2018.
10. In view thereof, I.A. No. 3949 of 2023 stands disposed of.
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.587 of 2022
11. Admit.
12. The record of the lower court be called for.
13. List this appeal for hearing as per seriatim.
(Subhash Chand, J.)
RKM
