Mansingh Soren vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 2313 Jhar

                            1




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
      Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.327 of 2023
                        -----

1. Mansingh Soren

2. Sonaram Besra .... ... Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent

-------

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

-------

For the Appellants : Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. V.S.Sahay, A.P.P.

------

Order No. 04/Dated 14th July, 2023

I.A.No.3869 of 2023

This interlocutory application has been preferred under

Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 06

days in preferring the instant criminal appeal.

2. Heard parties.

3. Considering the sufficient cause as has been referred in

the interlocutory application and having no objection on the

part of the Respondent State, the delay of 06 days in preferring

the appeal is hereby condoned.

4. I.A. No. 3869 of 2023 stands allowed.

Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.327 of 2023

5. Admit.

6. Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned Additional Public Prosecutor,

waives notice on behalf of the State.

7. Call for the Lower Court Records.

I.A. No.2464 of 2023

8. The instant interlocutory application has been heard

with the consent of the parties which has been filed for

suspension of sentence dated 15.12.2022 passed by learned

Special Judge, POCSO Act, Seraikella-Kharsawan in connection

with POCSO Case No.27/2020 arising out of Kandra P.S. Case

No.16/2020 registered for the offence under Section 323, 341,

376D, 504, 506 of the I.P.C. and Section 6 of the POCSO Act

whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted

and directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

9. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that

the impugned judgment suffers from infirmity since the

judgment is based upon the testimony of the prosecutrix PW-2.

9(i) According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the

testimony of the Doctor, PW-4 has not been appreciated in the

right perspective since the Doctor has opined of having no sign

of rape/intercourse.

9(ii) Learned counsel for the appellant, in that view of the

matter, has submitted that the judgment of conviction cannot

be said to be based upon cogent evidence and, as such, it is a fit

case where the sentence may be suspended.

10. On the other hand, Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, has submitted that it

is incorrect on the part of the appellant to take the ground that

there is no consideration of the testimony of the Doctor since

the Doctor has opined by giving opinion that the chances of

sexual assault cannot be ruled out.

10(i) It has further been pointed out by referring to the cross

examination of the Doctor wherein it has been deposed that it is

not necessary that there is always a sign of injury on the genital

organs of the subject in case of sexual assault.

10(ii) Learned State counsel, in view thereof, has submitted

that since the nature of offence is grievous and, as such, it is

not a fit case where the sentence may be suspended.

11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and

taking into consideration the nature of allegation against both

the appellants which has been supported by the prosecutorix,

PW-2, having been corroborated by the testimony of the Doctor,

PW-4, are of the view that it is not a fit case where the sentence

is to be suspended.

12. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected.

13. The instant interlocutory application (I.A. No.2464 of

2023) is accordingly, dismissed.

14. It is made clear that any observation made herein will

not prejudice the case on merit as the appeal is lying pending

for its consideration.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Subhash Chand, J.) Birendra/