Jharkhand High Court
Vijay Lohra vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 February, 2025
Author: Navneet Kumar
Bench: Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 336 of 2024
Vijay Lohra, aged about 28 years son of Shital Lohra resident of Village-
Bejang, P.O. - Tangar, P.S. Chanho, District- Ranchi. --- --- Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
For the Appellant : Mr. Amrendra K. Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, APP
I.A. No. 1674 of 2025
07/27.02.2025 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned APP
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 08.05.2024 and
order of sentence dated 17.05.2024 passed in Case NO.ST-547/2018
arising out of Sukhdeonagar P.S. (Pandra O.P.) Case No.219 of
2018, G.R. No.2488 of 2018 by the learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner-XVI, Ranchi whereby the appellant has been
convicted for the offence under Section 363 of IPC and sentenced
to undergo R.I. for seven years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in
default of payment of fine, further directed to undergo R.I. for six
months.
3. At the outset it has been pointed out by the learned defence
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the appellant has
been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the
IPC under which the requirement is that victim should be minor and
in the present case, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring
any slightest documentary evidence to establish that the victim was
minor i.e. below 18 years of age.
4. Further, it has also been pointed out that the I.O. in this case
has been examined as PW-5 and he categorically stated in para 17
that during the course of the investigation, he had obtained one
progress report of the victim vide para 68 of the case diary and that
progress report was of the class 4 upon which neither any seal of
the school or the principal was there on the progress report and as
such no convincing document has been brought on record to prove
the age of the victim in order to fasten the guilt of the accused under
Section 363 of the IPC.
5. Further, it has also been argued on behalf of the appellant that
it is admitted case of the prosecution that both the parties, the
victim and the appellant were fully acquainted with each other and
this appellant was in the distant relation and both had gone to
Banaras and lived there for one month which is an admitted fact and
as such during the course of the stay of the victim and the appellant
together in the Banaras no any police report has been instituted by
the victim nor any alarm was raised nor any disagreement has
been stated by the victim during the course of her stay in Banaras
and as such the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful. It has
also been argued on behalf of the appellant that the I.O. PW-5
during the course of the investigation has found that both the victim
and the accused-appellant were in love with each as evident from
Para 16 of the deposition of PW-5.
6. Further, it has also been pointed that in the FIR where the
father of the victim is the informant and he has stated that the
appellant had allured and enticed her to take her away but the
victim has stated the she was forcefully taken away by the appellant
and as such there major contradiction between the versions of the
victim and the father and the truthfulness is that the victim being
the major had voluntarily accompanied the appellant to the Banaras
and therefore, the conviction of the appellant for the offence
punishable under Section 363 of the IPC is bad in law and fit to be
set aside and the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail by
suspending the order of sentence.
7. On the other hand, learned APP appearing on behalf of the
2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 336 of 2024
State has opposed the contentions raised by the appellant and
submitted that the victim has consistently stated her age about 14
years right from her deposition recorded under Section 164 of the
Cr.P.C. and also during course of the deposition at the trial and as
such she was minor at the time of the occurrence. Further, although
the prosecution did not bring any cogent documentary evidence
with respect to the age of victim but the I.O. has stated in para 17
that he has procured one progress report of Class-IV i.e. mark-sheet
where the date of birth of the victim was 06.06.2006 but he has
admitted that in the progress report neither any seal of the school or
principal was found and as such the appellant does not deserve to be
enlarged on bail by suspending the order of sentence.
8. Heard the parties, perused the record of the case including the
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 Judicial Commissioner-XVI,
Ranchi in connection with Case NO.ST-547/2018 arising out of
Sukhdeonagar P.S. (Pandra O.P.) Case No.219 of 2018, G.R. No.2488
of 2018.
11. I.A. No. 1674 of 2025 is allowed.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Basant/S.Das
3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 336 of 2024
