Jharkhand High Court
Sanjeet Sharma @ Sanjit Kumar Sharma @ ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 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. 697 of 2024
--------
Sanjeet Sharma @ Sanjit Kumar Sharma @ Sanjit Sharma, aged about
24 years, S/o Sanjay Sharma, Resident of Village: Noamundi Kolhan
Hating, P.O. & P.S.: Noamundi, District-West Singhbhum
.. ... 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. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Sp.PP
--------
nd
Order No. 09/ Dated: 22 January, 2025
IA No.5404 of 2024
This instant interlocutory application has been filed for suspension
of sentence against the Judgment of conviction dated 12.10.2023 and
order of sentence dated 13.10.2023 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (POCSO) Act, West Singhbhum at
Chaibasa, in connection with Special POCSO Case No. 02 of 2020 and
Mahila and Child Protection P.S. Kiriburu Camp Noamundi Case No. 02
of 2019 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under
Sections 376 & 366 of the IPC and under Section 6 of POCSO Act and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 21 years for the offence punishable under
Section 6 of the POCSO Act and also directed to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/-
and in case of default of payment of fine, further directed to undergo S.I.
for one year. No separate sentence was given under Section 376 & 366
of the IPC in view of the provisions of Section 42 of the POCSO Act.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that although the
conviction is under Sections 376 & 366 of the Indian Penal Code as also
under Section 6 of the POCSO Act but so far as the conviction under
Section 6 of the POCSO Act is concerned, the same cannot be said to be
tenable in view of the fact that there is no conclusive proof of the age,
rather, as per the opinion of the Doctor, she has been assessed to be 18 -
19 years, as such, the victim is not coming under the word of definition
of child as defined under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act, 2012.
3. Further the submission has been made so far as the conviction
under Sections 366 & 376 of the IPC are concerned, no ingredient is
being attracted reason being that both the appellant and the victim are in
the talking term as also living as a wife and husband hence at best it can
be said to be consensual establishment of the physical relationship in
between the both.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant based upon the aforesaid
grounds has submitted that it is therefore a fit case for suspension of
sentence.
5. While on the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer
for suspension of sentence. It has been contended that if the testimony of
the victim will be taken into consideration then it would be evident that
the prosecution has been able to substantiate the charge and as such it is
not a fit case for suspension of sentence.
6. 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.
7. It is the admitted fact, as it would be evident from the material
available in record as per the LCR that the age has not been proved as
provided under Section 94(1) and (2) of the JJ Act, 2015. However, the
plea has been taken that no certificate either of the birth certificate issued
by the School or by a corporation or municipal authority have been
brought on record in course of the trial. Learned Trial Court however has
relied upon the version of the Doctor who has assessed the age of the
victim on the basis of the radiological examination in between the age of
18-19 years which can be said to be as per the provision made under
clause 2(iii) of Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015. The age therefore as per
the evidence of the Doctor is in between 18-19 years. So far as attracting
the ingredient under Sections 376 & 366 of the IPC is concerned, it is
evident from the testimony of the victim who herself admitted the fact
that she was in love with the appellant and accepting the appellant as an
2 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 697 of 2024
husband.
8. This Court considering the aforesaid fact is of the view that the
appellant has been able to make out a case for suspension of sentence.
9. Accordingly, the Interlocutory Application stands allowed.
10. 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 Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge
(POCSO) Act, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in connection with Special
POCSO Case No. 02 of 2020 and Mahila and Child Protection P.S.
Kiriburu Camp Noamundi Case No. 02 of 2019.
11. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A.
No.5404 of 2024 stands disposed of.
12. 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. 697 of 2024
