Jharkhand High Court
Suraj Nayak vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 October, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.2210 of 2023
Suraj Nayak, aged about 24 years, s/o Braj Mohan Nayak, r/o Kumirta,
P.O. & P.S. Kumardungi, and District - West Singhbhum
..... 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. Mayank Mohit Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, APP
-----
rd
Order No.4: Dated 3 October 2024
I.A. No.11720 of 2023
The instant interlocutory application has been filed by the appellant for
suspension of sentence during the pendency of the present appeal, directed
against the judgment of conviction dated 02.06.2023 and order of sentence
dated 03.06.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I cum Special
Judge, POCSO Act, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in connection with Tonto
P.S. Case No.04 of 2021 corresponding to Spl. (POCSO) Case No.10 of
2021, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under
Sections 376(3) of Indian Penal Code and u/s 4(2) of POCSO Act and has
been sentenced to undergo R.I. of twenty one (21) years for the offence u/s
4(2) of the POCSO Act and directed to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in case of
default of payment of fine, further directed to undergo Six months additional
Simple Imprisonment.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the appellant has
been falsely implicated in this case and both the appellant and victim was in
good relationship.
3. Further submission has been made that the doctor has also not
supported the physical relationship. Even, the other witnesses have not
corroborated the case of establishing the physical relationship. The ground
has also been raised that the victim remained for one day with the appellant
but there was no complaint by the family members with respect to the
missing.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant based upon the aforesaid
arguments has submitted that it is a fit case, where the sentence is to be
suspended.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for
bail. It has been contended that it is a case where the appellant has been
found establishing the physical relationship with the victim, whose age has
been assessed 13 to 14 years as per the report of the doctor. Further
submission has been made that the victim has been examined as PW-5, has
fully supported the prosecution version and has also remained consistent in
the cross-examination to the fact of sexual intercourse, has also been found
true even by the doctor. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor based upon the
aforesaid grounds submitted that it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone across the findings
of the learned court in the impugned judgment. We have also gone through
the lower court records, which contains the testimonies of the witnesses and
the medical reports.
7. The appellant has been convicted under Sections 376(3) of Indian
Penal Code and u/s 4(2) of POCSO Act and the age of the victim has been
assessed 13 to 14 years. The victim has been examined as PW-5, who has
fully supported the prosecution version, remained consistent in the cross-
examination. Doctor has supported the prosecution version of establishing
physical relationship.
8. The Court, considering the aforesaid facts, is of the view that it is not a
fit case for suspension of sentence. Accordingly, the prayer for bail stands
rejected.
9. I.A. No.11720 of 2023 stands dismissed.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
R.Kumar
