Jharkhand High Court
Krishna Lohra Aged About 29 Years vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 October, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1196 of 2023
Krishna Lohra aged about 29 years, s/o Deonath Lohra, R/o Village- Kanarawa
Bantoli, P.O. & P.S. - Bharno, District-Gumla (Jharkhand)
..... 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. Kirpa Shankar Nanda, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, APP
-----
th
Order No.4: Dated 16 October 2024
I.A. No.10184 of 2024
The instant interlocutory application has been filed by appellant for
suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal, which has been preferred
against the judgment of conviction dated 15.04.2023 and order of sentence dated
25.04.2023 passed by learned Exclusive Special Judge (POCSO), Gumla in Special
POCSO GR Case No.705 of 2017, arising out of Bharno P.S. Case No.45 of 2017,
whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offences 376(D)
of Indian Penal Code, under Sections 4, 8 & 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced
him to undergo R.I. for a period of 20 years with a fine of Rs.50,000/- for the
offence punishable under Section 376(D) of Indian Penal Code and in default of
fine, further directed to undergo S.I. for 18 months, however period of detention
already undergone by the convict has been directed to set off.
2. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the instant case merely on
the basis of the testimony of PW-1, victim, as it would not have been corroborated
by the doctor, who has been examined as PW-6.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that save
and except PW-1, victim, no other witness supported the prosecution version and he
1 Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1196 of 2023
has remained in custody for seven years and as such, it is a fit case where the
sentence is to be suspended.
4. While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the suspension of sentence and submitted by referring the
testimony of PW-1, victim, who in the specific words has submitted that she was
subjected to rape, first by the present appellant after undressing her and thereafter
another convict namely Ramesh Lohara committed rape upon her.
5. It has further been submitted that she remained constant in the cross-
examination, even though she was subjected to cross-examine at length.
6. The submission has been made so far as the testimony of the doctor is
concerned, although the doctor has opined that there is no evidence of sexual
assault, but it is well settled that the testimony of the victim is to prevail upon the
medical evidence and in that view of the matter, if the learned trial court has come
to the conclusion while proving the charge-sheet beyond reasonable doubt, the
judgment cannot said to be suffered with error and it is not a case where such
sentence is to be suspended.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone across the findings
recorded by the learned court in the impugned order and also the testimony of the
victim as available in the lower court record, which has also been discussed in the
impugned order.
8. The argument advanced on behalf of the appellant showing the discrepancies
in the testimony of PW-1 victim. We have considered the testimony of PW-1,
victim, who has deposed regarding the commission of the rape by the present
appellant after undressing her and subsequent thereto the co-convict namely
Ramesh Lohra had committed rape. It further appears from the testimony of PW-1,
victim that she was subjected to cross-examine at length and she remained
consistent as would be evident from the testimony of PW-1 as recorded in the cross-
examination, wherein she has disclosed that her mouth was pressed by Krishna
2 Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1196 of 2023
Lohara, who is the present appellant and that is why she could not raise her voice.
The present appellant has pressed her with one hand and used the other hand to
keep her in lap and she tried to escape from his clutch, but she could not succeed.
9. It is thus evident that the testimony of the victim, PW-1 remained intact,
even the prosecution version has totally been supported. However the Doctor, who
has been examined as PW-6 has given its opinion, having no sign of sexual assault,
but this Court, taking into consideration the fact that the judgment is based upon the
testimony of PW-I who remained consistent even in the cross examination and as
the principal has been followed by giving weightage of the testimony of the victim,
who has been subjected to rape over and above the testimony of the doctor, the
judgment of conviction has been passed. Admittedly herein the age of the victim
has not been questioned, who has been assessed to be 16 years of age on the basis
of the parameters under section 94(1) of the JJ Act.
10. It has further been appears that the victim, who has also been examined
under section 164 of the CrPC, in which she is fully affirmed in her examination /
cross-examination.
11. Considering the aforesaid, this court is of the view that the present appellant
has not been able to make a prima facie case for suspension of sentence and as
such, the prayer for suspension of sentence is hereby dismissed.
12. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A. No.10184 of
2024 stands dismissed and disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
R.Kumar
3 Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1196 of 2023
