Bagun Soy vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 3169 Jhar

                               -1-

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.269 of 2023
Bagun Soy                                    ..... ... Appellant
                           Versus
The State of Jharkhand                       .... .... Respondent
                        --------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND For the Appellant : Mr. Navneet Sahay, Advocate For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P.

--------

th 04/25 August, 2023 I.A. No.6081 of 2023

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of

the appellant under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of

sentence in connection with judgment of conviction dated 21st

February, 2023 and order of sentence dated 28th February, 2023

passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Seraikella-

Kharsawan in POCSO Case No.01 of 2021, whereby and

whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence

under Sections 354, 354(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section

8 of the POCSO Act. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for three years along with fine of

Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, he was

further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for four months

for the offence under Section 354 I.P.C. Further he was directed to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years along with fine of

Rs.12,000/- and in default of payment of fine six months simple

imprisonment for the offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act

and no separate was awarded under Section 354-A I.P.C. in view

of Section 42 of the POCSO Act. All the sentences were directed to

run concurrently and the period undergone in custody will be set

off from the sentence awarded.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that impugned

judgment of conviction dated 21st February, 2023 and order of

sentence dated 28th February, 2023 passed by the learned court

below in POCSO Case No.01 of 2021 is based on the testimony of

the victim alone. The testimony of other prosecution witnesses is

hearsay evidence. The occurrence is alleged to be of 26th October,

2020 and the F.I.R. was lodged four days belated of which there is

no cogent explanation on behalf of the prosecution and the court

below has not taken into consideration the delay in lodging the

F.I.R.

3. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the

contentions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and

contended that the court below has convicted the appellant on

proper appreciation of evidence. The victim told in regard to the

occurrence to her family members who were also examined as

prosecution witness, therefore, their testimony also becomes

admissible since the victim was also examined. It is further

submitted that the victim and other witnesses have thoroughly

corroborated the prosecution story.

4. From perusal of the impugned judgment, it is found that the

informant--victim was examined as P.W.-3 and she nowhere in her

statement explained the delay in lodging the F.I.R. P.W.-5 is the

I.O. of the case, who in his statement stated that he recorded the

statement of victim and other witnesses. The witnesses stated

that there was a meeting in the village on 30th October, 2020 and

in the said meeting, the accused admitted his guilt saying that it

was done inadvertently. In cross-examination, this witness also

stated that at the time of occurrence it was pitch dark and the

accused was standing in front of the door and due to darkness he

collided and had no ill intention. The I.O. also admitted that

though he recorded the statements of Chandmuni Dongo,

Vishwanath Dongo and Arun Mahanti, yet he did not give their

name as a witness in the charge-sheet.

5. In view of the discussions made hereinabove and also keeping in

view the finding recorded by the court below in the impugned

judgment, I am of the view that it is a fit case for keeping the

sentence in abeyance.

6. Accordingly, the I.A. No.6081 of 2023 stands allowed.

7. In consequence, thereof, the appellant abovenamed is directed to

be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees

Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each

to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act,

Seraikella in connection with POCSO Case No.01 of 2021.

8. It is made clear that any observation made in this order will not

prejudice the issue on merit as the appeal is lying pending for its

consideration.

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.269 of 2023

9. The scanned copy of Lower Court Records have already been

received in this case.

10. List this appeal for hearing as per its seriatim.

(Subhash Chand, J.) Rohit