Jharkhand High Court
Ranbir Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 June, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 223 of 2023
Ranbir Singh --- --- Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
For the Appellant : M/s Ritu Kumar, Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Advocates
For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestra, Spl. P.P.
05/13.06.2023 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Spl.P.P. on
I.A. No. 618 of 2023.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant
interlocutory application has been preferred on behalf of the appellant
with prayer to enlarge him on bail during pendency of this appeal, which
is directed against the judgment dated 24.11.2022 and order of sentence
dated 06.12.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act,
Seraikella Kharsawan in POCSO Case No. 21 of 2017 whereby the
appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections
363,366,354A,354B and 506 of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act
and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 5 years with a fine of Rs.5000/-
and a default sentence u/s 363 IPC; R.I. for 7 years with a fine of
Rs.7000/- and a default sentence u/s 366 IPC;R.I. for 3 years with a fine
of Rs.3000/- and a default sentence u/s 354B IPC; R.I. for 2 years with a
fine of Rs.2000/- and a default sentence u/s 506 IPC; R.I. for 4 years
with a fine of Rs.4000/- and a default sentence u/s 8 of the POCSO Act.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the
impugned judgment and order of sentence is bad in law in view of the
fact that the learned Trial Court has miserably failed to ascertain and
determine the age of the victim as to whether she is minor or not within
the meaning of Section 27 of the POCSO Act where the medical
examination of the victim -P.W.2 is mandatory inasmuch as there is
material contradiction in age of the victim as in the F.I.R the age of
victim is mentioned as 15 years whereas in the deposition of the victim,
she has stated that she is 21 years old and as such the conviction under
the aforesaid sections are vitiated. It has further been pointed out that
appellant is an old person aged about 68 years and having grown up
children and he is also a handicapped person suffering from mental and
several old age diseases including blood sugar and blood pressure and he
is in jail for more than one year including the pre-conviction and post-
conviction period. Further, it has been pointed out that neither the car
which is alleged to have been used in the alleged occurrence has been
seized nor the driver of the said car has been arrested and therefore it is
submitted on behalf of the appellant that the defence taken on behalf the
appellant that the victim's father had taken money from the appellant and
when he demanded the money back he was implicated in the false and
concocted case, cannot be ruled out. It is further pointed out that one Om
Prakash Tiwari and Golu Tiwari, who are alleged to have seen the victim
in the temple were not examined by the prosecution and further it is also
submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant is ready to deposit
the entire fine amount as imposed by the court below in order to give it
to the victim -P.W.2 by way of compensation and since this appeal is not
likely to be taken up for hearing in the near future, appellant may be
enlarged on bail during pendency of this appeal.
4. On the other hand, learned Spl.P.P. appearing on behalf of the
State has vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the appellant
and submitted that this appellant being old man has committed such a
serious offence of sexually assaulting the victim other than kidnapping
and abducting her within the meaning of Section 363 and 366 of the IPC
and therefore, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail at this stage.
5. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, perused the record
of the case.
6. In the light of persuasive submission advanced on behalf of
learned counsel for the appellant, it is just and proper to enlarge the
appellant on bail during pending of this appeal.
7. Accordingly, the appellant, named above, is directed to be
enlarged 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 Learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Seraikella-
Kharsawan in connection with POCSO Case No. 21 of 2017 arising out
of Adityapur P.S. Case No. 235 of 2017, subject to the condition as set
out under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. and further subject to the condition
that appellant shall deposit the entire fine amount as imposed by the
learned court below under each head/ count, which comes to Rs.21000/-
in the court below before furnishing the bail bond, in order to give it to
the victim P.W.2 by way of compensation without being prejudiced to
his right of defence. Learned court below shall issue notice upon the
P.W.2 and after her appearance and proper identification, disburse the
fine amount by way of compensation to her. Appellant is directed to file
the money receipt of the fine amount within a period of 4 weeks from
today.
8. I.A. No. 618 of 2023 is disposed of.
9. This appeal has already been admitted. Put up his appeal under
the heading for hearing as per seriatim.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
A.Mohanty
