Jharkhand High Court
Soma Oraon vs The State Of Jharkhand on 29 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 837 of 2022
Soma Oraon ... Appellant
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
For the Appellant :- Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate;
Mr. Praveen Shankar Prasad, Advocate
For the State :- Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, APP
...
07/29.08.2023: IA No. 5945 of 2023
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned
counsel for the State on the interlocutory application filed by the appellant for
suspension of sentence during the pendency of this criminal appeal.
This criminal appeal was directed against the judgment of conviction
dated 31.01.2020 and the order of sentence dated 06.02.2020, passed by the
learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-III-cum-Special Judge, Gumla, in
(POCSO) GR Case No. 122 of 2017, whereby and whereunder, the appellant
has been convicted under section 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years RI
and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of fine, further sentenced to undergo 2
months SI.
The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
prosecution case has been lodged by the informant after two days' delay and no
explanation was been made for the same. The learned counsel for the appellant
has further submitted that all the witnesses have given contradictory statements
to each other with regard to place of occurrence, time of occurrence, ocular
evidence, presence of other witnesses. Moreover, PW-5, who is the doctor, after
examining the victim, did not find any injury on perineal region and no
bleeding over the body of the victim. PW-5 has also stated that no foreign body
was seen on perineal region and no bleeding prevaginal of the victim. PW-5
examined vaginal swab and found no spermatozoa. The learned counsel has
further submitted that the PW-4, who is the victim, has basically supported the
prosecution case. The learned counsel has further submitted that the expert,
who was assisting the Court in examination of the victim, was not administered
oath. Moreover, the expert has also stated that he was unable to understand
what was gestured by the victim. The learned counsel has further submitted
that the PW-7, who is the investigating officer of this case, has admitted that he
had not interrogated Jarku Lohra, Birsa Lohra and Hardeo Master, whose
houses were situated beside the place of occurrence. PW-7 has also stated that
he had not interrogated the victim with the aid of deaf and dumb expert and
that he had not conducted TIP of the accused in presence of the victim. PW-7
has further stated that he had not seized the undergarments of the victim and
the accused. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that
the appellant has spent more than half of the period of the imposed sentence in
custody. Therefore, his prayer for suspension of sentence, during pendency of
this criminal appeal, may be considered.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed this interlocutory
application for suspension of sentence, during the pendency of this criminal
appeal.
Having gone through the records of the case, considering the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, also considering the
period of custody already spent by the appellant and in the facts and
circumstances, present petitioner, named above, is ordered to be released on
bail, during pendency of this criminal appeal, on executing bail bonds of Rs.
1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each
to the satisfaction of the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-III-cum-
Special Judge, Gumla, in (POCSO) GR Case No. 122 of 2017.
Accordingly, IA No. 5945 of 2023 stands disposed of.
S.B. (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
