Jharkhand High Court
Maheruddin Ansari @ Mutun @ Mahiruddin vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 January, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1339 of 2024
----
Maheruddin Ansari @ Mutun @ mahiruddin
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-------
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
------
For the Appellant : Mrs. Sunita Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Saket Kumar, APP
--------
th
Order No. 05 : Dated 28 January, 2025
I.A. No. 11001 of 2024
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on
behalf of sole appellant under Section 430 (1) of the BNSS,
2023 for suspension of sentence dated 07.09.2024 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, cum-Special Judge
(POCSO Act), Lohardaga in Special POCSO Case No. 31 of
2020 in connection with Bhandra P.S. Case No. 56 of 2020,
whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been found
guilty and convicted under Section 376 IPC and under
Section 4 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo RI for
20 years for the offence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act
with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default thereof RI for three
months.
2. It has been contended on behalf of appellant that it is a
case where even though wide contradictions are there in the
testimonies of the victim, who has been examined as P.W. 1,
if compared with the testimony of her brother, who has been
examined as P.W. 8.
3. The argument has been advanced by raising question
with respect to the FSL report to the effect that the victim has
not disclosed in the testimony that she has also handed over
the undergarment over which the specimen of seamen was
found but even then the conviction is based upon the FSL
report.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has further
submitted that it is a case of false implication in order to save
one another and as such it is a fit case for suspension of
sentence.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the
aforesaid ground, has submitted that the appellant may be
released on bail by suspending the sentence during pendency
of the instant appeal.
6. While on the other hand, learned APP appearing for the
State has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of
sentence. It has been contended by referring to the testimony
of P.W. 1 who has categorically deposed that the belongings
including all the clothes which she was wearing at the time of
occurrence had been handed over and subsequently the same
was found to having the mark of specimen of seamen has
been sent to the FSL wherein the sample has been matched
with that of the present appellant having been found in the
undergarment of the victim.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent based upon the
aforesaid ground has submitted it is a sexual assault and as
such the judgment of conviction has rightly been passed
under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and therefore, it is not a fit
case for suspension of sentence.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
across the finding recorded by the learned trial Court in the
impugned judgment as also the testimony of the witnesses as
available in the Lower Court Records and other materials
available on record particularly the FSL report, which has
been marked as P-11.
9. This Court in order to appreciate the argument advance
on behalf of parties has gone across the testimony of the
victim [P.W.1] wherefrom it is evident that the victim has fully
supported the prosecution version and she remained
consistent in her cross-examination by disclosing the name of
the appellant, who has committed the sexual assault upon
the victim attracting the ingredient of Section 4 of the POCSO
Act.
10. It is also evident from the material available on record
that the age of the victim has been assessed to be 16 years as
per the certificate issued under the seal and signature of the
headmaster of the school, who has been examined as P.W. 12
and proved the certificate issued by the school.
11. Furthermore, the FSL report i.e., Ext. 11 also goes to
corroborate version of the victim that the victim was raped by
the appellant on the date of occurrence. For ready reference,
the extract of FSL report, as mentioned in the impugned
judgment, is quoted as under:-
i. "The DNA profile generated from the source of
Exhibit marked A (Source: Blood and semen positive
panty cuttings-female fraction), and exhibit marked
B (Source: Blood negative and semen positive
underwear cuttings) are mixed and from more than
one human source of origin.
ii. "The DNA profile generated from the source of
Exhibit marked A (Source: Blood and semen positive
panty cuttings male fraction) and exhibit marked C
(Source: Blood positive gauze piece cuttings said to
contain blood sample of accused) is from one and
the same human male source of origin.
12. This Court considering the testimony of P.W. 1 as also
FSL report is of the view that the appellant has not been able
to make out a case for suspension of sentence.
13. Therefore, the instant Interlocutory Application stands
rejected.
14. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove
will not prejudice the case of the parties on merit since the
appeal is lying pending for its consideration.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Alankar/
