Jharkhand High Court
Chhotelal Soren vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 February, 2024
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1553 of 2022
------
Chhotelal Soren .... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
------
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P.
------
Order No. 05 Dated- 17.02.2024
I.A. No. 12091 of 2022
Heard Mr. Pran Pranay, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing of
the State.
The instant Interlocutory Application has been filed by the
appellant for suspension of his sentence, during the pendency of this
criminal appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 16.09.2022 and
order of sentence dated 29.09.2022 passed in POCSO Case No. 02 of
2017 arising out of Palajori P. S. Case No. 03 of 2017 by the learned
Special Judge, POCSO, Deoghar whereby and whereunder, the
appellant has been found guilty for the offence punishable under
Sections 366/376(2)(n) IPC and further the appellant has been sentenced
to undergo RI for five years for the offence under Section 366 IPC along
with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and has also been awarded sentence to undergo
RI for ten years along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under
Section 376(2)(n) IPC and in default of payment of fine, the appellant
shall undergo imprisonment for six months in each section separately.
Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
has been erroneously convicted and sentenced by the learned trial court
without appreciating the evidence available on record in true
perspective. It is further submitted that the occurrence of taking away
the victim-girl from her house allegedly took place on 31.08.2016 and,
thereafter, she was left near her house by the appellant on 13.09.2016.
Surprisingly, the parents of the victim-girl did not lodge any FIR during
the said period of 13 days which itself suggests that the entire
prosecution story was concocted to falsely implicate the appellant.
Moreover, perusal of the deposition of the victim (P.W. - 2) would itself
reveal that she stayed with the appellant at different places during the
said period and, therefore, it cannot be said that she was forcibly kept
by the appellant and the rape was committed upon her by him. The
Medical Report also does not suggest the factum of rape as alleged by
the victim. Under the said circumstance, the sentence awarded to the
appellant may be suspended during the pendency of the present
appeal.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor while opposing the prayer
for suspension of sentence submits that the trial court has rightly
convicted and sentenced the appellant as there was enough material on
record to substantiate the factum of rape committed by him upon the
victim-girl.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, on perusal of the
LCR including the different depositions of prosecution witnesses
particularly the victim (P.W. - 2) as well as the Doctor (P.W. - 7), we are
inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to the appellant by the
learned trial court.
Accordingly, the appellant, named above, is ordered to be
released on bail, during pendency of this appeal, on executing bail
bonds of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special
Judge, POCSO, Deoghar in POCSO Case No. 02 of 2017 arising out of
Palajori P. S. Case No. 03 of 2017.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 12091 of 2022 stands disposed of.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Umesh/-
