Jharkhand High Court
Khunti vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 February, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 88 of 2025
---------
Baula Singh @ Largu Singh, aged about 43 years, son of Lalu Singh,
resident of village Usram Ganjhu Toli, P.O. & P.S. Rania, District
Khunti, 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. Prabhat Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, APP
-----------
05/Dated: 28 February, 2025
th
I.A. No. 13108 of 2024
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section
430(1) of BNSS, 2023 for keeping the sentence in abeyance in
connection with the judgment of conviction dated 06.09.2024 and
order of sentence dated 12.09.2024 passed by the learned Special
Judge, POCSO Act, Khunti in connection with POCSO Case No. 32 of
2022 arising out of Rania P.S. Case No. 53 of 2022, whereby and
whereunder, the appellant have been convicted and sentenced with
Rigorous Imprisonment for twenty years for the offence punishable
under Section 6 of POCSO Act along with fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in
default of payment of fine, the appellant has further been directed to
undergo SI for six months.
2. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant that it is a case where conviction is passed solely based
upon the testimony of PW 3, the child having the age of 5 years.
3. It has further been contended that the parameters as provided
under Section 118 of the Evidence Act read with Section 4 of the
Oaths Act regarding the assessment of the child to tender her
testimony has not been properly taken into consideration.
4. Further, the learned counsel has submitted that it is a case of false
implication as there is a land dispute going on between the two
families.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, based upon the
aforesaid ground, has submitted that therefore it is a fit case for
suspension of sentence while the appeal is pending.
6. While, on the other hand, Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for suspension of sentence.
7. It has been submitted that there is no immaterial irregularity in
taking the testimony of the PW 3 (the victim-child), since the
procedure as has been laid down under Section 118 of the Evidence
Act read with Section 4 of the Oaths Act has fully been followed.
8. It has further been submitted that the victim-child has fully
supported the prosecution version as would be evident from the
statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and she
remained consistent in the examination-in-chief/cross-examination.
9. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone across
the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned
order as also the testimony and other material exhibits available
therein.
10. We have considered the statutory provision in order to appreciate
the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellant to the effect that the procedure as has been laid
down under Section 118 of the Evidence Act read with Section 4 of
the Oaths Act has been followed or not and as such gone through the
testimony of PW 3 and it is evident therefrom that the first 3
questions are within the parameter of Section 118 of the Evidence
Act and the learned Court, while recording her testimony, has
assessed her mental status as to whether she was in a position to
give her testimony or not.
11. This Court, after having been satisfied, has given a finding therein
that the witness is capable to state and her evidence can be taken
into consideration.
12. We, therefore, is of the view that the procedure as laid down under
Section 118 of the Evidence Act read with Section 4 of the Oaths Act
has been fully followed herein.
13. We, therefore, has gone through the testimony of the victim, who is a
female child of 5 years, who has fully supported the prosecution
version in her testimony which she has also stated in her statement
recorded under Section 164 of the Cr. P. C.
14. The other evidence, i.e., the testimony of the other witness is also in
favour of the prosecution version.
15. This Court, after considering the aforesaid fact particularly the
testimony of PW 3, the victim child of 5 years, who remained
consistent in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr. P. C.
and examination-in-chief/cross examination, is of the view that it is
not a fit case where the sentence is to be suspended.
16. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A. No.
13108 of 2024, is hereby, rejected.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Samarth
