Jharkhand High Court
Suman Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 February, 2025
Author: Navneet Kumar
Bench: Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 384 of 2024
Suman Kumar, aged about 27 years, son of Upendra Prasad Sah, Resident of
Village- Patichak-Phirojpur, P.O. & P.S.-Meharma, Dist. Godda
--- --- Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
For the Appellant : Md. Sajid Yunus, Advocate
Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Sushma Aind, A.P.P.
I.A. No. 13269 of 2024
06/24.02.2025 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.P.P.
representing the State.
2. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for
suspension of sentence of the appellant by enlarging him on bail
during pendency of the instant criminal appeal, which has been
preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 10.05.2024 and
order of sentence dated 14.05.2024 passed in Sessions Trial No. 132
of 2018 arising out of Meharma P.S. Case No. 145 of 2017
corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1681 of 2017 by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-II, Godda whereby the appellant has
been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 366-A IPC
and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 9 years and a fine of
Rs.10,000/- and a default sentence of S.I. for 6 months.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the age of the
victim has not been legally proved in order to ascertain as to
whether the victim was minor or major to convict the appellant
under Section 366-A of the IPC, although the Investigating Officer,
who has been examined as P.W.7 has procured the certificate
(Ext.4) from the Upgraded High School, Phirojpur, Meharma,
Godda for determination of age of the victim as to whether she was
minor or major in order to fasten the guilt of the appellant under
Section 366A of the IPC but neither any official nor staff of the
said school has been examined to prove the content of the alleged
certificate to be true and as such Ext. 4 is not a legally admissible
evidence in the eyes of law.
4. It has further been pointed out that the mother of victim
(P.W.1) has categorically stated in para 8 of her cross examination
that only she knew about the relationship of the appellant with her
daughter. Further it has also been pointed out that the victim (P.W.2)
has herself stated in her deposition that she was recovered from
custody of Haroon and Parwez and not from the custody of this
appellant, as evident from para 6 of her cross examination but
neither Haroon nor Parwez have been examined on behalf of the
prosecution nor they have been made accused.
5. It has further been pointed out by the learned counsel for the
appellant that the truthfulness and veracity about the statements of
the victim P.W.2 become doubtful in the light of the testimony of
P.W.2-victim in para 7 where she stated that she did not know the
appellant from before whereas the mother of the victim, who has
been examined as P.W.1 categorically stated that she was the only
person who knew about the relationship of the appellant with her
daughter and therefore, the statement of the victim becomes
doubtful.
6. Further, it has been pointed out that the victim P.W.2 has
nowhere stated in her examination-in-chief that she was forced or
seduced for illicit intercourse with another person as required under
Section 366-A to fasten the guilty upon the accused therein. Further,
it is pointed out that appellant is in custody since 10.05.2024 and he
was all along on bail during the course of trial and, therefore, he
deserves to be enlarged on bail.
7. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the
State has opposed the contentions raised by the appellant and
submitted that the victim has categorically stated in her
examination-in-chief before the learned Trial Court that she was
forcibly abducted by the appellant in a Bolero vehicle and therefore,
the appellant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. Further, it has
2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 384 of 2024
been pointed out that the certificate (Ext.4) of the school with
respect to age of the victim was although not proved by any
authority of the school but it has been procured by the Investigating
Officer and therefore, the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted
the appellant by taking into consideration the said document.
Therefore, it is submitted that appellant does not deserve to be
enlarged on bail.
8. Heard the parties, perused the record of the case including the
trial court record, depositions of witnesses and other exhibits.
9. In view of the persuasive submission advanced by the learned
counsel for the appellant, it is found just and proper to enlarge the
appellant on bail.
10. Accordingly, the appellant named above is directed to be
released on bail on furnishing of 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-II, Godda in
connection with Sessions Trial No. 132 of 2018 arising out of
Meharma P.S. Case No. 145 of 2017 corresponding to G.R, Case No.
1681of 2017.
11. I.A. No. 13269 of 2024 is allowed.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
A.Mohanty
3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 384 of 2024
