Jharkhand High Court
Sukhlal Honhaga @ Gabbar 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
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 23 of 2025
---------
Sukhlal Honhaga @ Gabbar, aged about 22 years, son of Satish Honhaga,
Resident of Village-Purnia, P.O.- Purnia, P.S. Muffasil Chaibasa, District-
West Singhbhum. ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
----------
For the Appellants : Md. Razaullah Ansari, Adv.
For the Respondent : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, A.P.P.
-----------
th
06/Dated: 24 February, 2025
I.A. No.12975 of 2024
1. The instant Appeal has been listed for passing an appropriate order on the
instant interlocutory application filed on behalf of appellant under Section
430(1) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail during the pendency of the instant Cr. Appeal (DB)
No. 23 of 2025 in connection with Spl. POCSO Case No.47 of 2022, arising
out of Chaibasa, Muffasil P.S. Case No.138 of 2022 against the judgment of
conviction dated 08.04.2024 and order of sentence dated 10.04.2024 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge1-cum- Special Judge (POCSO) Act, West
Singhbhum, at Chaibasa, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been
convicted under Section 323, 366-A, 354-B, 376(D), 506 of IPC and also under
Section 6 and 8 of the POCSO Act, and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year
under Section 323 of IPC and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years, for
the offence punishable under Section 366A of the IPC and further directed to
pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine further directed to
undergo S.I. for 5 months. Appellant has further been sentenced to undergo R.I.
for two years, for committing the offence punishable under Section 506 of the
IPC. Further, the appellant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, which
would mean imprisonment for remainder of his natural life for the offence
punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and was directed to pay a fine of
Rs.15,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine further directed to
undergo one year additional R.I. No sentence has been passed under Section
354-B, 376-D of IPC and under Section 8 of POCSO Act.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where the
prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charges against the appellant
beyond all reasonable doubt, reason being that in the testimony of the victim
who has been examined as PW-1 has contradiction in all three stages i.e. First
Information Report, one version, Statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
another version and in the testimony, the third version has been uttered by the
victim. Therefore, the testimony of the victim cannot be said to be the
trustworthy. Further, the testimony has also not been corroborated from all
other witnesses particularly the doctor who has been examined as PW-8 who
has deposed having not found any sign of injury while the victim in her
deposition has deposed that she has been injured in course of commission of the
rape. Further submission has been made that the motive behind the false
implication is also there which would be evident from the testimony of PW-7 to
whom the marriage of the victim was to be solemnized but the reason has been
shown that since she has been caught red handed in the bush along with one
Deven Kachhap by the appellant and due to that her marriage with PW-7 which
was already fixed has also been broken and that is the reason for the
implication of the appellant by instituting the F.I.R.
3. Submission has also been made that co-convict, namely, Ramchandra Tiu @
Ram Chandra Tiu has been allowed to be released on bail vide order dated
09.09.2024 passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB)
No.637 of 2024 and co-convict, namely, Anuj Pratap Tiu has also been allowed
to be released on bail vide order dated 05.12.2024 passed by coordinate Bench
of this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1278 of 2024.
5. It is further contended that the case of the co-convicts namely, Ramchandra Tiu
@ Ram Chandra Tiu and Anuj Pratap Tiu, who were directed to be released on
bail, are identical to that of present appellant. Therefore, it is a case where the
sentence is fit to be suspended.
6. While on the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted
by referring to the testimony of the witnesses and by making submission that if
the testimony of all the witnesses will be taken together then it cannot be said
that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges against the appellant, but
has not controverted the fact that the case of the co-convicts namely,
Ramchandra Tiu @ Ram Chandra Tiu and Anuj Pratap Tiu, who were directed
to be released on bail, are identical to that of present appellant.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across findings
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
exhibits.
8. This Court in order to appreciate the argument advanced on behalf of the
parties particularly the submission which has been advanced on behalf of the
appellant regarding the trustworthiness of the testimony of the victim, we have
gone through the testimony of PW-1, F.I.R. which was instituted by the victim
herself and her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In all these
stages, the contradiction is there. The aforesaid facts have also been admitted
by learned Public Prosecutor.
9. The doctor has also given different opinion regarding the injuries said to be
sustained to the victim in course of occurrence. The doctor has given specific
opinion that no injury has been found and even no sign of rape etc. has been
reported to be there.
10. We have also considered the testimony of PW-7 to whom the marriage of the
victim was scheduled to be solemnized but due to surfacing of the love affairs
in between the victim and the PW-7, the marriage has broken.
11. This Court taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter as also
the co-convict, namely, Ramchandra Tiu @ Ram Chandra Tiu who has been
allowed to be released on bail vide order dated 09.09.2024 passed by the
coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.637 of 2024 and also the
co-convict namely, Anuj Pratap Tiu who has been allowed to be released on
bail vide order dated 05.12.2024 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court
in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1278 of 2024, is of the view that this appellant also
deserves to be released on bail.
12. This Court is therefore of the view that it is a fit case where the impugned order
needs to be interfered.
13. Accordingly, the Interlocutory Application stands allowed.
14. In consequence thereof, the appellant, named above, is directed to be released
on bail during pendency of this appeal, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to
the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-1-cum- Special Judge
(POCSO) Act, West Singhbhum, at Chaibasa in connection with Spl. POCSO
Case No.47 of 2022, arising out of Chaibasa, Muffasil P.S. Case No.138 of
2022.
15. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A. No.12975 of 2024
stands disposed of.
16. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not prejudice the
case on merit, since, the criminal appeal is pending before this Court for its
consideration.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Sunil-Amar/-
