Ram Bilas Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 2805 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Ram Bilas Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 February, 2025

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                  Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.1299 of 2022
                                     -----

Ram Bilas Yadav, aged about 28 years, S/o Sri Vasudev Prasad Yadav, R/o Village-Belgarha, PO-Bekobar and PS-Koderma, District-Koderma ... ... 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. Kumar Amit, Advocate
   For the Respondent : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, APP
                                       ------
                           th
   Order No.07/Dated: 24 February, 2025
   I.A. No. 1593 of 2025

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for keeping the sentence in abeyance in connection with the judgment of conviction dated 16.09.2022 and order of sentence dated 27.09.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1-cum-Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Koderma in connection with Special POCSO Case No.06 of 2021, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted under section 376(AB) of the IPC and under Section 4(2)of the POCSO Act as also Section 6 read with section 5(m) of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 25 years and a fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence under Section 376(AB) of the IPC and in default of payment of fine further directed to undergo SI for two years, RI for 22 years and a fine of Rs.15,000/- for the offence under section 4(2) of the POCSO Act and in default of payment of fine further directed to undergo SI for one year, and all the sentences will run concurrently. However, no further sentence is awarded to the appellant under Section 6 read with Section 5(m) of the POCSO Act in view of section 42 of POCSO Act.

2. It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case due to land dispute between the family of the present applicant and the victim.

3. It has been contended that it is a case where the doctor has not supported the prosecution story and even though the doctor has not found any sign of rape or any injury upon the body of the victim, but the applicant has been convicted for commission of the offence said to be committed by him under Section 376(AB) of the IPC and section 4(2) of the POCSO Act.

4. It has been contended that even the material evidence is the testimony of the victim and the other witnesses and even then without giving any consideration to the contradiction part in the testimony of the said witnesses the order of conviction has been passed, and, therefore, the conviction of the applicant cannot be said to be based upon the principle for proving the charge beyond all reasonable doubts. As such, it is a fit case where the sentence of the present applicant may be suspended.

5. While, on the other hand, Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned APP appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence.

6. It has been contended by the learned APP that the prosecution version has fully been supported by the victim who is aged about 7-8 years at the time of occurrence. It has been contended that other material witnesses have fully supported the prosecution version.

7. It is also submitted that the FSL reports also substantiate the commission of crime of rape/sexual assault and, as such, there is no error in the impugned judgment and, hence, it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the findings recorded by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment as well as the testimony available in the lower Court records, as also the materials exhibit, particularly, FSL reports which have been marked as Exts.9 and 9/1 as available therein.

9. It is evident from the materials available on record that the age of the victim is assessed to be 7 years, a student of Class-III. The victim has been examined as PW1. Her statement prior to her examination as PW1 has been recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C and the signature over the same has been marked as Ext.3. She has fully supported the prosecution version. She remained consistent in her examination-in-chief/cross-examination being examined as PW1. PW2, the mother of the victim, who is the

informant of the present case has also fully supported the prosecution version.

10. So far as the argument which has been advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that the doctor has not fully supported the prosecution case is concerned, we have considered the testimony of the doctor and in order to come to a finding, have also gone through the FSL reports which have been marked as Exts.9 and 9/1.

11. We have found from the FSL reports that the seminal stains having in the panty of the victim and the undergarments of the applicant have been found to be matched and are of the same person which has been considered by the learned trial Court under paragraph nos. 39 and 40 in the judgment impugned, which are quoted as under:

"39. Priyanka Kumari is the I.O. of the case. She has also fully supported the prosecution case. She has arrested the accused on 19.01.2021. In para- 11, she has deposed that she had seized the underwear of the accused put on by him at the time of occurrence and made seizure list (Ext. 7) thereof. In para 5, she has deposed that the mother of the victim had brought to the Police Station the undergarment of the victim put on by her at the time of occurrence and the same was produced to the police which was duly seized by PW-8 I.O by making a seizure list (Ext. 3/1) in her handwriting and signature. The accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C in question No.10 has also admitted that his underwear had been seized by the police. Thus, it stands proved beyond reasonable doubts that undergarments of the victim and accused both were seized and the same had been sent for its examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory (F.S.L.), Ranchi. The F.S.L. Reports (Exts. 9 and 9/1) have been received, wherein it has been reported that two samples, one being a maroon coloured panty and a black coloured underwear had been received at the F.S.L. and on both the samples/ exhibits i.e. panty and the underwear, semen had been detected in DNA profiling and the semen stains on both the undergarments have been reported to be "of one and the same human male source of origin".

40. Thus, from the above discussed ocular evidence and also from the D.N.A report from the F.S.L. (Exts. 9 and 9/1), it is clear that the rape had been committed upon the victim by the accused and there was emission of semen from the accused which was also found on the undergarments of both i.e. accused and victim as well. Thus, oral evidence is corroborated and supported even from the F.S.L. reports."

12. The doctor although has stated that no sign of any sexual assault has been found as per her testimony recorded at paragraph no.6, but it appears from the further examination of PW7 by putting a question by the Court that when the victim girl was examined on 18.01.2021 on the basis of the requisition made by the Investigating Officer, then why the girl was examined on 06.02.2021. The doctor (PW7) while answering the same had

stated that the girl actually was examined on 18.01.2021 but due to inadvertence the date over the examination report has been given to be 06.02.2021 which is the suppression of the date of the medical report.

13. This Court, in view thereof, is of the view that the doctor has gone against the prosecution version in order to suppress the truth which would be evident from the fact that although the girl was examined on 18.01.2021 but the report was prepared on 06.02.2021. Further, FSL reports are in support of the prosecution version.

14. This Court, in view thereof, is of the view that the present interlocutory application is not fit to be allowed and, hence, we are not inclined to enlarge the present applicant on bail by suspending his sentence.

15. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1593 of 2025 stands dismissed.

16. Before parting with the order, this Court needs to refer herein that the doctor who has been examined as PW7, prima-facie, appears to not discharge her duty for which she has been posted and conducted unfair examination of the victim girl who is having the age of 7 years, student of Class-III as would be evident from the question put by the learned trial Court which is being quoted herein as under:

"Court question - You have deposed in para - 1 that the victim girl was examined by you on 06.02.2021, but the requisition for medical examination appears to have been given by the I.O. of the case on 18.01.2021. On the medical examination report, the I.O. also appears to have made her signature with dated 18.01.2021. Thus, there is a discrepancy in the date of requisition and the date of examination of the victim by you. What you have to say in this regard? Answer - The victim girl was actually examined by me in the hospital on 18.01.2021 itself, that is on the very day on which she was brought by the police for this purpose. The samples were collected on the same day and the medical examination report was issued later on, on the basis of report of the laboratory. The date of examination in the medical examination report appears to have been made due to inadvertance which bears the date on which reports was prepared by me i.e. on 06.02.2021."

17. So far as the medical report is concerned, the same cannot be said to be correct in view of the FSL reports. This Court, in view of the blinded conduct of the doctor said to be prima-facie appears to be not proper, cannot shut its own eyes and, as such, we are constrained to refer the matter before the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical

Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand to look into the matter so that there may not be any miscarriage of justice.

18. 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.

19. The learned APP is directed to communicate this order to the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand to take appropriate action in this regard, in accordance with law.

20. In view thereof, I.A. No. 1593 of 2025 stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

Sudhir