Jharkhand High Court
Vikas Kumar @ Botal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 February, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1372 of 2024
With
I.A. No. 9846 of 2024
---------
Vikas Kumar @ Botal, aged about 25 years, son of Late Kuttu
Singh, resident of Ambedkar Nagar, Jhumri Telaiya, P.O.
Jhumri Telaiya, P.S. Telaiya, District Koderma (Jharkhand).
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
----------
For the Appellant : Mr. Sahil, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, A.P.P.
-----------
th
05/Dated: 18 February, 2025
I.A. No. 9846 of 2024:
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf
of appellant under Section 430(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for suspension of sentence in
connection with judgement of conviction dated 24.05.2024
and order of sentence dated 03.06.2024 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions judge-I-cum-Special Judge, POCSO Act,
Koderma in Special POCSO Case No.05 of 2022 arising out
of Telaiya P.S. Case No. 40 of 2022, whereby and
whereunder, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for maximum 22 years along
with fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, has
further been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one
year.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a
case where the testimony of the victim, which is the sole basis
of conviction, is not being corroborated by the testimony of
the doctor.
3. It has further been contended that there is no eye witness to
the occurrence.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid
ground, has submitted that it is therefore, a fit case where the
sentence is to be suspended during pendency of the instant
appeal.
5. While on the other hand, Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-
State has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of
sentence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone across
the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned
judgment as also the testimony of the witnesses as available in
the lower court record and the other material exhibits.
7. This Court has found from the exhibits, particularly, Ext.-P11
which is the date of birth of the victim based upon that the age
of the victim has been determined as 08 years and 08 months.
8. This Court has also gone through the testimony of the victim
who has been examined as P.W.-7 who has fully supported the
prosecution version.
9. It is evident that the entire story has been narrated that how
she has been subjected to sexual assault attracting the
ingredient of Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
10. This Court has also gone through the statement of the victim
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she has fully
supported the prosecution version. The victim remained
consistent even in the cross-examination.
11. We have considered the testimony of P.W.-8 who is the doctor
wherefrom it is evident that lacerated injury seen on private
part on labia minora. It is further evident that the inflammatory
infiltrate has also been seen said to be moderate.
12. We have also considered the testimonies of P.W.-3, P.W.-4,
P.W.-5 and P.W.-6 who have seen the appellant carrying the
victim along with him.
13. It further appears from the testimony of the investigating
officer who has been examined as P.W.-12 that the sample of
the semen as also the undergarments of the victim has been
sent for its chemical examination and the report has been
marked as Ext.-P13 and Ext.-P14 which has been found to
substantiate the prosecution case.
14. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact having been taken
into consideration by the learned trial court while convicting
the appellant, is of the view that the appellant has not been
able to make out a case for suspension of sentence, as such,
we are of the view that it is not a fit case for suspension of
sentence during pendency of the instant appeal.
15. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A.
No. 9846 of 2024 stands dismissed.
16. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will
not prejudice the case on merit, since, the criminal appeal is
lying pending before this Court for its consideration.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Saurabh/-
