Jharkhand High Court
Santosh Hadi @ Santosh Hari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 April, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.124 of 2025
------
Santosh Hadi @ Santosh Hari, Aged about 30 years, Son of-Badal
Hri @ Badal Hari, Resident of-Baewada, P.O. & P.S.-Barwada,
District-Dhanbad .... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P.
------
08/Dated: 03.04.2025
I.A. No.2850 of 2025
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under
Section 430(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for
suspension of sentence dated 07.08.2024 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge (POCSO), Dhanbad, in connection with Special
POCSO Case No.13 of 2024, arising out of Dhanbad Rail P.S. Case
No.111 of 2023, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been
convicted for the offence under Section 376(3) of the IPC and
Section 4(2) of POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 20
years along with fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section
4(2) of the POCSO Act and in default of payment of fine, he has
further been directed to undergo S.I. for one month.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a
case where the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge
said to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts, reason being that,
the victim, who has been examined as P.W.1, has given
contradictory statements in the fardbeyan and the statements
recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid
ground, has submitted that in view of the contradictory statements
having been given by P.W.1, the victim, it is the best case where the
sentence is to be suspended.
4. While on the other hand, learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the
respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer for
suspension of sentence.
5. It has been contended by referring to the testimony of P.W.1
that P.W.1, the victim has fully supported the prosecution version, as
stated in the FIR which has been instituted on the basis of written
report of the victim, therefore, it is not a case where the sentence is
to be suspended by taking into consideration the fact that the age of
the victim has been assessed to be 14 years, which has not been
questioned by the appellant.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the
impugned judgment as also the testimony available in the trial court
records and other material exhibits available therein.
7. This Court, in order to appreciate the argument advanced on
behalf of the parties, has gone through the testimony of P.W.1 so as
to consider the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant
regarding the issue of contradiction made in the statements recorded
in fardbeyan and the statements recorded under Section 164 of the
Cr.P.C.
8. It is evident from the testimony of P.W.1 who has fully
supported by the prosecution version by deposing that she had gone
out from her house on 05.12.2023 to Banaras and thereafter, she
returned back by a train to Dhanbad after two days. In Dhanbad
Station, she had met with one lady, namely, Geeta Devi. The said
Geeta Devi (co-convict), who has been convicted in the commission
of crime, had carried the victim to the house of one person, who was
being called by said Geeta Devi as Santosh, the present appellant.
9. It has been deposed by P.W.1 that the appellant, thereafter,
has disrobed her and committed sexual assault/rape after giving one
chocolate. The same narration has been given by her in fardbeyan.
10. This Court, taking into consideration the testimony of P.W.1,
has found that she remained consistent so far as the issue of
commission of rape upon her even in the cross-examination and the
same thing has been stated by her in the statement recorded under
Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
11. We have also considered the medical report and the DNA
profile which also corroborate the prosecution version.
12. The age of the victim has been assessed to be 14 years and
as such, taking into consideration the testimony of P.W.1, this Court
is of the view that the appellant has not been able to make out a
prima-facie case where the sentence is to be suspended.
13. Accordingly, interlocutory application being I.A. No.2850 of
2025 stands dismissed.
14. It is made clear that any observation made herein will not
prejudice the issue on merit as the appeal is lying pending for its
consideration.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Rohit/-
