Jharkhand High Court
Md. Seikh @ Monu Mandal 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. 2052 of 2023
--------
Md. Seikh @ Monu Mandal, aged about 30 years, son of Late Rajpati
Mandal, resident of Village Nayabazar, P.O. and P.S. Nayabazar, District-
Sahibganj.
.. ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Union of India ... ... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
--------
For the Appellant : Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, Spl.PP
--------
th
Order No. 08/ Dated: 13 January, 2025
IA No.13452 of 2024
This instant interlocutory application has been filed for suspension
of sentence against the Judgment of conviction dated 11.06.2020 and
order of sentence dated 15.06.2020 passed by learned Special Judge,
(POCSO), Jamshedpur, in connection with Special POCSO Case No. 57
of 2019 arising out of Rail P.S. Tatanagar Case No. 47 of 2019, whereby
and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Sections 370(2)
and 419 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with fine
of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further sentenced to
undergo 03 months imprisonment under Section 370(2) of IPC and
further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-
and in default of payment of fine, further directed to undergo
imprisonment for one month under Section 419 of IPC. Both the
sentences were directed to run concurrently. The period already
undergone directed to be set off.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that appellant has
been convicted under Section 370(2) and 419 of IPC. The submission
has been made that a maximum punishment against the appellant as has
been inflicted is 10 years for commission of offence under Section
370(2) of the IPC out of which the appellant has remained in judicial
custody for about 5 years, 9 months, 13 days and as such he has
completed the half of the sentence. It has further been contended that the
similar circumstances one co-convict, namely, Kailash Kumar who has
also been directed to be enlarged on bail after suspension of sentence in
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.451 of 2020 vide Order dated 27.02.2024 passed in
I.A. No. 849 of 2023 by the co-ordinate bench of this Court while taking
into consideration the fact that the said Kailash Kumar co-convict has
completed more than half of the sentence i.e. four and half years in
custody against the maximum punishment of seven years said to be
committed under Section 363/34, 201/34 of IPC. It has also been
submitted that even no ingredient of Section 370(2) is made out if the
testimony of P.W.1, the mother of the victim child will be taken into
consideration and based upon the aforesaid grounds has submitted that
therefore it is a fit case for suspension of sentence.
3. 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 P.W.-1 has fully supported
the prosecution version and taking into consideration the nature of the
allegation, it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence so far as the
present appellant is concerned.
4. 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.
5. The appellant has been convicted under Section 370(2) of the IPC
as also under Section 419 of the IPC for which the maximum
punishment of 10 years have been imposed along with fine. We have
considered the testimony of P.W.-1, wherein the P.W.-1 while disclosing
her age 22 years at the time of occurrence has deposed that she was
induced in so many ways and the purpose for such inducement was the
marriage with the present appellant. P.W.-1 has further deposed that in
course thereof she on the insistence of the present appellant has reached
to the destination that is the Tatanagar Railway Station carrying with the
three years old female child and in course thereof the three years old
child has been abducted and subjected to sexual assault and finally she
2 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 2052 of 2023
has been killed. Learned State counsel is fair enough to submit that the
evidence has not come against the present appellant so far as the
commission of offence said to be committed to attract the offence either
under Section 4/6 of POCSO Act or Section 376 of IPC. The appellant
has completed more than half of the sentence against maximum sentence
of 10 years.
6. 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.
7. Accordingly, the Interlocutory Application stands allowed.
8. 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, East Singhbhum at
Chaibasa, in connection with Special POCSO Case No. 57 of 2019
arising out of Rail P.S. Tatanagar Case No. 47 of 2019.
9. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A.
No.13452 of 2024 stands disposed of.
10. 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
3 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 2052 of 2023
