Jharkhand High Court
Shankar Sahu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 April, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 78 of 2020
---------
Shankar Sahu, aged about 32 years, Son of late Basant Sahu, Resident of
Village-Gateyatoli, P.O. and P.S.- Lapung, District-Ranchi.
... ... 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. A.K. Sahani , Advocate
For the Resp. State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P.
-----------
th
09/Dated: 7 April, 2025
I.A. No.3890 of 2025
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of appellant for
suspension of sentence dated 18.12.2019 passed by the learned Additional
Judicial Commissioner-IV-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Ranchi in POCSO
Case No. 06/2018 whereby and where under, the appellant has been
convicted for the offence under Section 376 and sentenced to undergo R.I.
for 10 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, S.I.
for three months. Further, appellant has also been convicted under Section 4
and 6 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 20 years with fine of
Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, S.I for three months.
2. It has been contended that there is dispute about the issue of the age of the
victim. It has further been submitted that the prosecution witnesses have not
fully supported the prosecution version, rather if their testimonies are taken
into consideration together, then the contradictions have been found and as
such, it is a fit case where the sentence of the appellant is to be suspended.
3. While on the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel
appearing for the Respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer for
suspension of sentence of the appellant.
4. It has been contended by referring the testimony of the victim, who has been
examined as P.W.1 that she has fully supported the prosecution version what
she has stated in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
5. It has further been corroborated from the testimony of doctor that he has
found the victim is carrying pregnancy of 25 weeks, the day when she was
examined.
6. It has also been submitted that on the earlier occasion, interlocutory
application filed for the suspension of sentence was dismissed as not
pressed.
7. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that it is
not a fit case for suspension of sentence.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the findings
recorded by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment as also the
testimony of the witnesses as available in the Trial Court Records and other
material exhibits appended therewith.
9. This Court, in order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the
parties, has gone through the first information report, statement of the victim
recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., testimony of victim (P.W.-1)
along with the testimony of the Doctor, who has examined the victim.
10.The prosecution version, as per the statement recorded in the First
Information Report, having been found to be fully supported in her statement
recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. The victim, who has been
examined as P.W.1, has fully supported the prosecution version what she has
stated while recording her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Even
in the cross-examination, she remained consistent what she had deposed in
the examination-in-chief and the statement recorded under Section 164 of
the Cr.P.C. The doctor, who has examined the victim, has found on the date
of her examination that she was carrying pregnancy of 25 weeks. The age of
the victim has been assessed to be 18 years and that is the reason, the
conviction is also under Section 6 of the POCSO along with Section 376 of
the I.P.C.
11.This Court, considering the testimony of victim (P.W.1), the Investigation
Officer and the statement of doctor and statement of the victim recorded
under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., is of the view that it is not a fit case where
the sentence of the appellant is to be suspended.
12.Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 3890 of
2025 is dismissed.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Amar/-
