Jharkhand High Court
Sanoj Munda vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 October, 2023
1 Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1127 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1127 of 2022
Sanoj Munda, aged about 21 years, son of Lalku Munda, resident of
Gobersela, Areya Tangra Toli, P.O. & P.S. - Senha, District- Lohardaga
..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
For the Appellant : Mr. Pankaj Verma, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Saket Kumar, APP
-----
Order No.5: Dated 17 October 2023
th
I.A. No.1464 of 2023
The instant I.A. No.1464 of 2023 has been filed for suspension of
sentence under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. directed against the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
17.06.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-
Special Judge (POCSO), Lohardaga in Special POCSO Case No.33 of
2021, whereby and whereunder, the appellant / applicant namely
Sanoj Munda has been convicted for the offences under Section 376
(DA) of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 6 of the POCSO
Act and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of
Rs.20,000/- under Section 376(DA) of India Penal Code and in default
of payment of fine, directed to further undergo R.I. for three months,
but in view of Section 42 of POCSO Act, no separate sentence has been
passed under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
2. Mr. Pankaj Verma, learned counsel for the appellant / applicant
has submitted that it is a case where the prosecution has been
miserably failed to substantiate the charge, said to have committed for
the offence under Section 376 (DA) of Indian Penal Code and Section 6
of the POCSO Act.
2 Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1127 of 2022
3. It has been contended that although the PW-1, victim girl has
supported the prosecution version and remained consistent, what she
has stated while recording her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.,
but the victim, after giving birth of a child, who was subjected to DNA
analysis / test, wherein the report has come of not founding the
appellant to be a biological father of the said newly born baby, hence,
it is incorrect on the part of the prosecution to say that the victim was
subjected to the physical relationship, said to have been committed by
the appellant herein. The Learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, based on the aforesaid premise has submitted that it is a fit
case, where the sentence is to be suspended.
4. Mr. Saket Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for
suspension of sentence on the ground that the victim has fully
corroborated the prosecution version, who was having the age of 14
years at the time of commission of crime.
5. It has been submitted that she has supported the prosecution
case while recording the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.
Submission has also been made that since the prosecution version has
fully been supported by the victim, mainly the DNA test found to be
in-corroboration, so far as the biological father of the newly born baby
is concerned, the prosecution version cannot be disbelieved.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, based on the aforesaid
premises has submitted that the prosecution has fully been able to
substantiate the charge as alleged as per the FIR, based upon the
testimony of PW-1 and remained consistent in the cross-examination
as also while recording her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.,
it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the impugned order and also the testimony of the victim.
8. From the testimony of the victim, who has been examined as
PW-1 and she has fully corroborated the prosecution version, it is
3 Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1127 of 2022
evident that the appellant along with one Gyanchand and Naresh had
committed gang rape. She had not disclosed the said fact to her
mother. She has further deposed that due to the aforesaid physical
relationship, she conceived and when there was some fundamental
change on her body, then on being asked by her mother, she has
disclosed the entire story of commission of rape by Gyanchand,
Naresh and Sanoj, the appellant herein and thereafter the case was
instituted.
9. It is also evident that the statement of the victim was recorded
under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., which has been marked as Ext.-1/1.
We have gone through the statement recorded under Section 164 of
the Cr.P.C., wherein she has supported the prosecution version as has
been stated in the First Information Report.
10. The ground, which has been taken by the appellant that such
statement of the PW-1 cannot be said to be corroborative piece of
evidence, based upon the DNA repot. We are not in agreement with
such submission, since, even if going the DNA test, the testimony of
the PW-1, who remained consistent, what she has deposed in the First
Information Report and the statement recorded under Section 164 of
the Cr.P.C.
11. Therefore, we are of the view that it is not a fit case for
suspension of sentence.
12. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A. No.
I.A. No.1464 of 2023 is hereby rejected and disposed of, however, any
observation made will not prejudice, since the appeal is pending for
final hearing before this Court.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
R.Kumar
