Jharkhand High Court
Lawnandan Singh @ Lawnandan Kumar ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 299 of 2023
Lawnandan Singh @ Lawnandan Kumar Singh .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
---------------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
For the Appellant : Mr. S.T. Sajid, Advocate
Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, APP
---------------
th
Order No. 04/ Dated: 10 May 2023
Heard.
2. Admit.
3. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor waives notice on behalf of the State, as such, there is no need to
issue notice.
4. Call for the Lower Court Records.
5. The learned counsel for the State may file counter-affidavit
on or before the next date of hearing.
I.A. No. 2284 of 2023
6. With the consent of the parties, the same has been heard.
7. The instant interlocutory application has been filed by the
appellant under section 389 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
for release on bail during pendency of the appeal.
8. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced dated
22.12.2022 and 21.01.2023 respectively passed by the learned Special
Judge, POCSO Act, Garhwa in POCSO Case No. 68 of 2020, in
connection with Ranka PS Case No. 94 of 2020, whereby and whereunder
the appellant has been convicted under section 376 of the Indian Penal
Code and section 6 read with section 5(1) of POCSO Act and sentenced
to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 100000/- and default of
payment of fine further sentence three years simple imprisonment.
9. Mr. S.T. Sajid, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant
has submitted that there is no cogent evidence on record to substantiate the
crime of sexual assault/rape. It is evident from the fact that the occurrence
said to have taken place on 01.06.2019 but the FIR was instituted on
08.06.2020, i.e., after lapse of period of one year without any explanation to
that effect. It has been contended that even the age of the victim girl has not
been assessed before convicting the appellant under section 6 of the POCSO
Act, which is the requirement under the POCSO Act so as to punish the
offender for commission of offence under the aforesaid Act and in that view
of the matter the judgment of conviction under section 6 of POCSO Act
cannot be said to be proper.
10. Reference of the testimony of PW3 has been made who
happens to be the Bhabhi of the victim although, she has been declared to be
hostile but it has come in her testimony, in course of her examination that
the mother of the victim used to falsely implicate the accused persons by
filing false case. The testimony of PW2 also suggests that he has denied the
case of pregnancy/termination of pregnancy.
11. This Court after having heard the learned counsel for the
appellant is calling upon the State as to why the sentence in connection
with Ranka PS Case No. 94 of 2020 be not kept in abeyance.
12. Let such objection be filed on or before the next date of
hearing.
13. List this case on 15.06.2023.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Subhash Chand, J.)
RKM
