Jharkhand High Court
Hazaribag vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 February, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 48 of 2025
---------
Pannulal Marandi, aged about 22 years, S/O - Chhotka Manjhi @ Chotka
Manjhi @ Chotka Marandi, R/O- Chanaro, P.O & P.S.- Charhi, District-
Hazaribag, Jharkhand.
... 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. Sunil Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. V.S. Sahay, APP
-----------
04/Dated: .....27.02.2025
I.A. No. 68 of 2025
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 430 (1)
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for keeping the
sentence in abeyance in connection with the judgment of conviction
dated 25.06.2024 and order of sentence dated 03.07.2024 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-III-cum-Special Judge, POCSO Act,
Hazaribag in Special POCSO Case No. 19 of 2021 arising out of Charhi
P.S. Case No. 61 of 2020, whereby and whereunder, the appellant have
been convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 20
years & a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section
4(2) of the POCSO Act.
2. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant
that the conviction is based only upon the ocular evidence. According to
the applicant, the doctor has not found any sign of sexual assault said to
attract the core of the POCSO Act. Therefore, it is a fit case for the
suspending the sentence while the appeal is lying pending.
3. While, on the other hand, Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer
for suspension of sentence.
4. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone across the
finding recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned order, the
testimony available in the Lower Court Records and the other material
exhibits as available therein.
5. We have considered of testimony of the victim, who has been examined
as PW 9, who have fully supported the prosecution version. It is evident
from her testimony that she remained consistent in her statement
recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and in the testimony particularly
in the cross-examination also.
6. The question which has been raised is that the doctor has not found any
sign of sexual assault will be immaterial in view of the fact that the
occurrence took place on 06.07.2020 while the victim was examined on
07.07.2020.
7. In view of the fact that the victim, who happens to the age of 13 years,
after being assessed by the doctor with radiological examination, is fully
supported the prosecution version.
8. This Court, therefore, is of the view that it is not a fit case where the
sentence is to be suspended.
9. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A. No. 68 of
2025, is hereby, rejected.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Samarth
