Jharkhand High Court
Deepak Kumar Das @ Deepu Kumar Das @ ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 January, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 947 of 2024
--------
Deepak Kumar Das @ Deepu Kumar Das @ Deepak Das, aged about 22
years, son of Hiralal Das, Resident of Village-Nagabad, P.O.-Naitand,
P.S.-Dumri, District-Giridih. .. ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
--------
For the Appellant : Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl.PP
--------
th
Order No. 07/ Dated: 09 January, 2025
IA No.6968 of 2024
This instant interlocutory application has been filed for suspension
of sentence against the Judgment of conviction dated 25.06.2024 and
order of sentence dated 28.06.2024 passed by learned Special Judge,
POCSO Act, Giridih, in connection with POCSO Case No. 88 of 2021
arising out of Dumri P.S. Case No. 46 of 2021, whereby and whereunder
the appellant has been convicted under Sections 342, 354, 354A, 376(3)
of the IPC and Section 4/8 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.20,000/- under Section 4 of
the POCSO Act and further directed to undergo R.I. for a period of 6
months in default of payment of fine, and under Section 8 of POCSO
Act, R.I. for 5 years along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in case of default
of payment of fine, further directed to undergo R.I. for six months under
Section 354 of IPC, R.I. for three years along with fine of Rs. 5000/- and
in case of default of payment of fine further R.I. for three months and
under Section 342 of IPC, R.I. for one year. No separate sentence has
been passed under Section 354-A and 376(3) of IPC and all the sentences
were directed to run concurrently. Period already undergone directed to
be set off.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case
where the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case which is
evident from the testimony of P.W.-1, the victim and if the testimony of
her brother, P.W.-4 is taken together.
3. It has further been contended that there is delay in instituting the
F.I.R. of five days, however, it can be understood that in the matter of
FIR due to the mental suffering of the victim, the FIR may not be filed
immediately after the occurrence but here the factual aspect which is not
in dispute as per the testimony of the witnesses that on the following day
of the alleged date of occurrence of commission of rape a Panchayati
was held for the settlement of the issue.
4. It has therefore been contended that when the matter has been
brought in the Panchayat then what prevented the victim or her family
members in instituting the FIR on the following day of the date of
occurrence. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that this
show the falsity of prosecution version.
5. It has further been contended by referring to the testimony of the
P.W.-4 where he has deposed as has been recorded in Para 37 that if a
sum of Rs.7 Lakhs would have been paid then the FIR could not have
been instituted.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellant based upon the aforesaid
grounds has submitted that this material are very much evident in
doubting the prosecution version and as such it is a fit case for
suspension of sentence.
7. While on the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer
for suspension of sentence and contended by referring the testimony of
P.W.-1, the victim and also the testimony of P.W.-4 that they have fully
supported the prosecution version.
8. So far as the issue of Panchayat is concerned, it has been
submitted that due to the mental trauma, the matter has not been reported
to the Police rather the endeavors had been taken to settle these issue in
the Panchayat.
9. Learned Spl. PP appearing for the State based upon the aforesaid
ground has submitted that it is therefore not correct on the part of the
appellant to take the ground that the prosecution has not succeeded in
proving the charge beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore it is not a
2 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 947 of 2024
fit case for suspension of sentence.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the
findings recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned Judgment as
also the testimonies of the witnesses available in the LCR and other
material exhibits available therein.
11. This Court in order to appreciate the argument advanced on behalf
of the parties has gone through the testimony of the victim, P.W.-1 who
while making deposition has stated the date of occurrence is 19.05.2021
at about 9:00 am the appellant had tried to commit rape upon her. She
has further deposed that on 27th date of 2021 at 4:00 pm appellant
committed rape upon her and the occurrence of 27th took place before
the occurrence of 19.05.2021. The time of occurrence of 4:00 pm has
been supported by the P.W.-4, who is brother of the P.W.-1, the victim.
12. It further appears that the FIR has been instituted after delay of
five days. The matter could be understood that in the case of rape, there
may be delay in instituting the F.I.R. due to the mental suffering of the
victim but here it is an admitted fact as has come in the course of
deposition that on the following day i.e. 20.05.2021, the Panchayat was
convened and the issue of rape said to be agitated in the said Panchayat.
Thus, the possibility of mental trauma is also having no substance, the
moment the fact about the commission of rape has been brought to the
notice of Panchayat. Then the question arises that what prevented the
victim or her family members in institution the FIR in the following day
i.e. 20.05.2021 before convening the Panchayat for settlement of the
issue.
13. It further appears from the testimony of P.W.-4, who has
supported the time of the occurrence at about 4:00 pm in the evening on
19.05.2021. It further appears from the statement so recorded in para 37
of the testimony of P.W.-4 wherein he has deposed that if a sum of Rs. 7
Lakhs would have been paid, then the case would not have been
instituted. Further in the suggestion it has come that the dispute was
already there for the purpose by making demand of land where the well
was there and to that effect the suggestion has been given as would
3 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 947 of 2024
appear in para 20 in the cross-examination of P.W.1. It further appears
that the FIR was instituted by taking aid of the counsel as has been
deposed by the P.W.-1, the victim.
14. This Court is therefore of the view that a doubt is there in
prosecution version as such the appellant has been able to make out case
for suspension of sentence.
15. This Court considering the aforesaid fact is of the view that it is a
fit case where the sentence of the present appellant needs to be
suspended.
16. Accordingly, the Interlocutory Application stands allowed.
17. In consequence, thereof, the appellant, named above, is directed
to be released on bail 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 Special Judge, POCSO Act, Giridih, in connection
with POCSO Case No. 88 of 2021 arising out of Dumri P.S. Case No. 46
of 2021.
18. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A.
No.6968 of 2024 stands disposed of.
19. 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.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Basant/S.Das
4 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 947 of 2024
