Jharkhand High Court
Lambodar Mahto @ Khekhra vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 April, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 856 of 2024
....
Lambodar Mahto @ Khekhra, aged about 25 years, son of
Meghnath Mahto, resident of Village-Parodih, Makranda, PO
and PS- Jaraikela, District- West Singhbhum ...... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Victim 'X' through the father of Victim 'X'
..... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Ankit Kumar, Amicus Curiae
For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, A. P. P.
.......
I. A. (Cr.) No. 13194 of 2024
02/09.04.2025 This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant
through Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
counsel for the State
3. The instant I. A. (Cr.) No. 13194 of 2024 has been filed
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of
121 days in filing the instant Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 856 of 2024.
4. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and
also in view of the averments made in para- 4 to 9 of the instant
I. A. (Cr.) No. 13194 of 2024 and taking lenient view, the delay of
121 days in preferring the instant Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 856 of 2024
is, hereby, condoned.
5. Thus, I. A. (Cr.) No. 13194 of 2024 is allowed and
stands disposed of.
6. This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the
appellant challenging the impugned judgment of conviction dated
01.06.2024 and order of sentence dated 06.06.2024 passed by Sri
Om Prakash, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special
Judge under the POCSO Act, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in
connection with Jaraikela P. S. Case No. 08 of 2020 corresponding
to Spl. POCSO Case No. 01 of 2021 by which the appellant has
been convicted for the offences under Sections 354 of the Indian
Penal Code and Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act and sentenced
to undergo R. I. for a period of five (5) years and to pay the fine of
Rs. 20,000/- for the offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and
sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of three (3) years and to pay
the fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 12 of the
POCSO Act. However, no separate sentence has been awarded to
the appellant for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal
Code in view of the provisions of Section 42 of the POCSO Act as
well as in view of the objects of the POCSO Act.
However, all the sentences have been directed to run
concurrently.
7. I. A. (Cr.) No. 13384 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the
appellant under Section 430 (1) of BNSS for the suspension of
sentence and for grant of bail, during the pendency of this Criminal
Appeal.
8. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP for
the State.
9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that
the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the
learned Court below are not sustainable in law. It is submitted that
the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted
that neither physical injury nor any internal injury was found on the
victim girl. It is alleged that the appellant had taken away the victim
girl towards the bushes and no mark of penetration was found on the
private part of the victim. It is further submitted that the appellant is
in custody since 12.11.2020 i.e for more than four years and five
months out of R.I. for five (5) years and as such, the appellant may
be enlarged on bail.
10. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail
and has submitted that there is direct allegation against the
appellant for sexually assaulting the victim girl. It is submitted that
the maternal grand-mother (Nani) i.e. P.W.-1 and Maternal grand-
father (Nana) i.e. P.W.2 have supported the prosecution case and
they are also the eye witness of the occurrence and they had arrived
on the cry of the victim girl. It is submitted that the mother of the
victim girl i.e. P.W.-6 has also supported the prosecution case. It is
submitted that the victim girl has been examined as P.W.-3 and who
has also supported the prosecution case. It is submitted that the
witnesses have supported the allegation against the appellant also
and hence prayer for bail of the appellant may be rejected.
11. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and considered the
submission of both the sides.
12. It appears from the impugned judgment that the appellant is
alleged to have taken away the victim girl on the pretext of giving
toffy near the bushes and when she cried and upon her cry, P.W.-1
i.e. the maternal grand-mother (Nani) had freed the victim girl from
the clutches of the appellant.
13. From perusal of the custody report enclosed as Annexure- A
to the I. A. (Cr.) No. 13384 of 2024 sent by the Superintendent
Central Jail, Ghaghidih, Jamshepur on 23.09.2024, it appears that
the appellant had remained in custody for three (3) years, ten (10)
months and twelve (12) days.
14. It appears that the appellant is in custody since
12.11.2020 i.e for more than four years and around five months out
of R.I. for five (5) years.
15. Considering on the facts and the circumstances of the case
and the fact that the appellant is in custody since 12.11.2020 i.e for
more than four years and around five months out of R.I. for five
(5) years, the appellant namely Lambodar Mahto @ Khekhra is
directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
15,000/- (Fifteen thousand only) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Om Prakash, learned
Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge under the POCSO
Act, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa/or his Successor Court in
connection with Jaraikela P. S. Case No. 08 of 2020 corresponding
to Spl. POCSO Case No. 01 of 2021.
16. Thus, I. A. (Cr.) No. 13384 of 2024 is allowed and stands
disposed of.
17. Admit.
18. Call for the scanned copy of the Lower Court Records.
19. Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to implead
the victim girl-X through her Natural Guardian/Father as respondent
no. 2 in course of the day.
20. Learned counsel for the State is directed to get served
the notice to the Natural Guardian/Father of the victim girl-X
through Superintendent of Police, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in
light of the judgment rendered in the case of Nipun Saxena and Anr.
Versus Union of India reported in (2019) 2 SCC 703 and also vide
Notification No. 23/2023/R&S/JHC dated 20.12.2023 issued by the
High Court of Jharkhand and shall file an affidavit regarding service
of notice upon the Natural Guardian/Father of the victim girl-X.
21. Let a copy of this order be sent to the office of
Superintendent of Police, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa by FAX and
be also handed over to the learned counsel for the State for the
needful.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Kamlesh/
