Jharkhand High Court
Albis Tigga Aged About 30 Years 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 (D.B) No. 1962 of 2023
....
Albis Tigga aged about 30 years, son of Late Tiras Tigga, Resident of
Murto, PO-Murtu, PS-Bero, District-Ranchi, 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. Ganesh Ram, Advocate
Mr. Prabhash Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P.
.....
Order No: 08/Dated: 18.02.2025
I.A. No. 763 of 2025
1. This interlocutory application has been filed for suspension of sentence
dated 22.08.2023 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-IV-
cum- Special Judge- POCSO, Ranchi in connection with Special POCSO Case
no. 16 of 2020 arising out of Bero P.S. Case No. 132/2019, by which the
appellant has been sentenced and directed to undergo R.I. for 25 years with
fine of Rs.15,000/- for the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and in
default of payment of fine, further S.I. for six (06) months.
2. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant that the appellant has been falsely been implicated in the present
case and the F.I.R has been instituted after delay of two (2) days which would
be evident from the prosecution version.
3. It has been contended that if the testimony of witnesses will be taken
together, it would be evident that the prosecution version has not been said to
be supported since there is contradiction in their testimonies.
4. While on the other hand, Mr. Saket Kumar, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for
suspension of sentence and submitted that it is not a fit case for suspension of
sentence.
6. We have heard 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 L.C.R. and other documents available on record
particularly the SFSL Report.
7. It needs to refer herein that the victim was subjected to the sexual assault is
aged about four (4) years.
8. It further appears that even the victim has been examined as PW-2 who has
fully supported the prosecution version. It is evident from her statement that
the appellant has taken her on allurement to give sweet, and committed wrong
with her. She has testified that she was in pain and blood was also oozing from
the private parts, in the meantime, her mother came then the accused fled
away.
9. The Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C of the victim has also been
recorded wherein the prosecution version has been supported.
10. We have considered the DFSL Report. It is evident from report that panty
worn by the victim at the time of occurrence and blood sample of accused
Albis Tigga has been examined and on examination (Ext.3 and Ext.4)
following conclusion has come which has been referred herein -
"(1) The DNA profile generated from the source of exhibit marked A is
mixed DNA profile from a human female source of origin with partial
DNA profile of from a human male source of origin.
(2) The DNA profile generated from the source of exhibit marked B is
from a human male source of origin.
(3) Y-STR human male DNA profile generated from the source of exhibit
marked A and exhibit marked B are from the same patrilineage."
11. Thus, it is evident from the said report that the semen of the accused found
on the panty of the victim.
12. Further it is evident from the testimony of P.W.1/ informant wherein she
has stated that accused Albis Tigga came towards her house and gone with her
daughter on allurement of purchase of sweets but he was not returned then she
started to search her victim/ daughter and gone towards the field and saw that
blood was present on the cloth of victim and she started to scold to the
accused then he was fled away.
13. Thus, the case of prosecution has fully been substantiated by the medical
evidence as discussed herein above and considering the same, this Court is of
the considered view that it is not a fit case where the sentence is to be
suspended.
14. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A No. 763 of
2025, is hereby, rejected.
15. 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.)
Nishant/Avinash
