Jharkhand High Court
Gita Biruli Aged About 25 Years W/O ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 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. 1906 of 2023
--------
Gita Biruli aged about 25 years W/o Sanjay Biruli, resident of Village:
Sonaposi, P.O. & P.S.: Jhinkpani, District: Singhbhum West Singhbhum,
Jharkhand.
.. ... 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. Ashwini Bhushan, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, APP
--------
th
Order No. 08/ Dated: 13 January, 2025
IA No.10101 of 2023
Learned State counsel has submitted that in pursuance of Order
dated 08.01.2025, the affidavit could not be filed as such he has sought
leave of this Court to accept the same in the Court.
2. We have considered the said submissions.
3. Let the said affidavit be taken on record.
4. This instant interlocutory application has been filed for suspension
of sentence against the Judgment of conviction dated 08.03.2022 and
order of sentence dated 15.03.2022 passed by learned Special Judge,
(POCSO) Act, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in connection with Special
POCSO Case No. 43 of 2018 arising out of Sadar Chaibasa Mahilathana
P.S. Case No. 06 of 2018, whereby and whereunder the appellant along
with one co-accused has been convicted under Sections 376 read with
Section 109 of the IPC and also under Section 370 of IPC and sentenced
to undergo R.I. for 15 years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, further sentenced to undergo 06 months S.I. under
Section 376 read with Section 109 of IPC and R.I. for 10 years for the
offence under Section 370 of IPC with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in
default of payment of fine, further sentenced to undergo 6 months S.I.
and the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
5. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that appellant has
been convicted but none of the ingredients either of Section 376 or 109
or 370 of the IPC is being attracted even then she has been convicted
under the aforesaid penal offence. The ground has been agitated that the
appellant has been convicted under Section 376 and 109 of IPC on the
basis of the allegation that the appellant used to send the victim before
the other person for her sexual exploitation and the said conviction is
based upon the testimony of the victim. But the chain cannot be said to
be completed since the person concerned who have sexually assaulted
the present victim has not been traced out and not chargesheeted. It has
further been submitted that the appellant has remained in judicial
custody for about 5 years 9 months 18 days and based upon the aforesaid
grounds, has submitted that it is a fit case for suspension of sentence.
6. While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer
for suspension of sentence and contended that the case of the appellant is
fully supported by the testimony of the victim if the testimony of the
victim will be taken into consideration who has been examined as P.W-4
It has further been submitted by referring to the order dated 08 th January,
2025 passed by this Court in the present proceeding and in pursuance
thereof the affidavit has been filed referring to the para 25 and 26, it has
been submitted that the S.I.T. has been constituted under the S.D.P.O.
Sadar, Chaibasa to trace out and arrest the main culprit of the crime of
physical assault upon the victim who has been said to be orphan and
living in the railway station.
7. 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.
8. This Court has gone through the testimony of P.W.-4, the victim
who has been shown to be an orphan living in the railway station has
deposed that she used to be sent by the appellant before the other person
for her sexual assault. The ground has been taken on behalf of the
appellant that the appellant being the lady and already remained in
judicial custody for about 5 years 9 months 18 days and was earning her
2 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1906 of 2023
livelihood by selling out the local liquor (Handia).
9. 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.
10. Accordingly, the Interlocutory Application stands allowed.
11. 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, West Singhbhum at
Chaibasa, in connection with Special POCSO Case No. 43 of 2018
arising out of Chaibasa Mahilathana P.S. Case No. 06 of 2018.
12. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A.
No.10101 of 2023 stands disposed of.
13. 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.
14. So far as the averments made on behalf of the S.D.P.O., Sadar,
Chaibasa in the affidavit filed vide order dated 08.01.2025, let the
investigation be carried out with all sincerity and by taking all endeavor
so that main culprit who have exploited sexually the victim be traced out
and brought to the judicial system for further necessary action.
15. The Superintendent of Police, Chaibasa is to monitor the
investigation which has been directed to be carried out by constituting
S.I.T. as stated under para 25 and 26 of the affidavit filed vide order
dated 08.01.2025.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Basant/S.Das
3 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1906 of 2023
