Jharkhand High Court
Md. Wahid @ Md. Abdul vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 February, 2024
Author: Ratnaker Bhengra
Bench: Ratnaker Bhengra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 484 of 2023
------
Md. Wahid @ Md. Abdul
Wahid @ Abdul Wahid .... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
------
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Fahad Allam, A.P.P
------
Order No. 05 Dated- 02.02.2024
I.A. No. 6499 of 2023
On call, both the counsels have appeared.
The instant interlocutory application has been filed by the
appellant for suspension of sentence dated 22.06.2023 passed by the
learned Special Judge, POCSO Chatra in connection with POCSO Case
No. 27 of 2022 arising out of Lawalong P. S. Case No. 26 of 2022 and
grant bail to the appellant during the pendency of this appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
convictions are under Sections 341, 342, 323, 324, 307 of the Indian Penal
Code, Section 8 of POCSO Act as well as Sections 3 /4 of Witchcraft
Prevention Act. The maximum imposed sentence under Section 307 IPC
is six years and for the offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act the
sentence imposed is four years. Learned counsel for the appellant has
submitted that the judgment runs contrary to the evidence of the father,
who is the informant; the mother; the victim herself and the Doctor. The
learned counsel has further submitted that informant's daughter was
never ill and that the appellant had not treated anyone in his home and
he does know that the appellant use to treat by way of sorcery. Further
he has stated that the written report is not in his writing and who has
changed the written report he cannot say about that and that his
daughter had told nothing about the incident. He has also pointed out
to the evidence of the mother and has submitted that she has more or
less stated in similar fashion but in Paragraph - 10 she has said that
victim was taken for treatment by one Binod to which counsel has said
that in the evidence of Binod who is P.W. - 1, he had not seen the
appellant doing sorcery. He has also referred to the evidence of the
victim who is P.W. - 9 and pointed out at Paragraph - 8 where she had
said that the appellant's photograph was shown to her by the villagers,
on the basis of which she had recognized him. He has further pointed
out from the evidence of the Doctor that Paragraph - 10 that neither any
injuries due to sexual assault upon the victim nor any evidence of rape
was found. Doctor had also not mentioned any type of burn injury.
Further counsel has submitted that he has been in custody for almost
one year 10 months and based also on the aforesaid circumstances, the
appellant may be granted the privilege of suspension of sentence.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for
suspension of sentence and has stated that independent witnesses P.W.s
- 6, 7 and 10 have supported the prosecution case and that P.W. - 10 has
stated that he had seen Rs. 1500/- being taken by the appellant which
was naturally given for the treatment of the girl. Learned counsel
further submitted that the victim in her deposition at Paragraph - 1 has
stated that wrongful act was committed by the appellant and, therefore,
based on the circumstances, the prayer for suspension of sentence of the
appellant may not be allowed.
Having heard the leaned counsels for the parties, noted the
submissions, gone through the records of the case and in facts and
circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to suspend the sentence of
the appellant above named, during the pendency of this appeal. The
prayer for suspension of sentence of the appellant above named is
rejected at this stage.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 6499 of 2023 stands dismissed.
(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
Umesh/-
uploaded
