Jharkhand High Court
Bahuran Lohra vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 November, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1619 of 2023
Bahuran Lohra, aged about 23 years, son of Sukru Lohra, Resident of village
Gatiatoli, P.O. P.S. Lapung, District - Ranchi
..... 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. Anupam Anand, Advocate
For the State :Mrs. Amrita Kumari, APP
-----
th
Order No.6: Dated 12 November 2024
I.A. No.11889 of 2024
The instant interlocutory application has been filed for suspension of
sentence during the pendency of the instant appeal, which has been preferred
against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.11.2019 passed
by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-IV cum Special Judge- POCSO,
Ranchi in S.T. No.543 of 2016, arising out of Lapung P.S. Case No.12 of 2016,
corresponding to G.R. Case No.1964 of 2016, whereby the appellant has been
convicted under Sections 302, 201, 376 of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 4
and 6 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with fine of
Rs.25,000/- for the offence committed under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and
in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for six months, for the offence
under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code, he has further directed to undergo R.I. for
three years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of fine simple imprisonment for
one month, under Section 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, he has further directed to
undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.25,000/- for each of the offences
separately and in default of fine, simple imprisonment for six months for each of
the fine and all the sentences are directed to run concurrently.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where the
appellant has been falsely implicated in this case in view of the ground of the last
seen theory and there is no cogent evidence to show the complicity of the appellant
with the crime.
3. It has been contended that the issue of involvement is the enmity with
respect to the solemnization of the marriage, which is the reason the appellant has
been falsely implicated in this case.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant based upon the aforesaid grounds
submitted that it is a fit case for suspension of sentence.
5. While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence.
6. It has been contended by the learned State counsel that the conviction is
based upon the applicability of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, since on the
discloser made by the appellant before the police, the dead body of the victim, who
was aged about eight years at the time of occurrence, has been recovered.
7. The learned trial court based upon the aforesaid applicability of the
provisions of Evidence Act has convicted the appellant and as such it is not a fit
case for suspension of sentence taking into consideration the nature of crime, which
is grievous.
8. This Court heard learned counsel for the parties, gone across the findings
recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned order as also the testimony of
the witnesses as available in the lower court records and other material exhibits
available therein.
9. It is evident from the factual aspect collected during the course of trial that
the victim was having age about eight years at the time of occurrence, was
subjected to the sexual harassment and subsequent thereto she has also been killed.
The dead body was found in the well. The appellant who was named by PW-9, the
informant, since he has taken the victim for the purpose of teaching the cycle and in
course thereof the death of the victim was placed. The prosecution case launched
and the appellant was convicted on the basis of discloser made by him before the
police with respect to the whereabouts of the dead body of the victim. The dead
body was found from the well on the discloser made by the appellant as per the
learned court and as per the provision of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The doctor
has also found the sign of ante-mortem injury and there was recent tear of hymen
and there was presence of dry blood stain on hymen.
10. This Court taking into consideration the aforesaid facts found that it is not a
fit case for suspension of sentence.
11. Accordingly, the prayer for suspension of sentence is rejected and the I.A.
No.11889 of 2024 also stands dismissed and disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
R.Kumar
-2- Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1619 of 2023
