Jharkhand High Court
Injmamul Haque @ Inzamamul Haque vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 March, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 609 of 2024
With
I.A. No.4778 of 2024
---------
Injmamul Haque @ Inzamamul Haque, aged about 19 years, son of Shamsad
Ali, resident of Village & P.O.-Telo, P.S.-Chandrapura, District-Bokaro
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Informant (father of the victim-Details kept in sealed cover)
....Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
----------
For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Sahni, Advocate
For the Resp. State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
-----------
th
13/Dated: 17 March, 2025
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of appellant for
suspension of sentence dated 20.03.2024 passed by the learned Special
Judge (POCSO Act), Bokaro in Special POCSO Case No. 16 of 2023
whereby and whereunder, the appellant was directed to undergo R.I. for 7
years and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine S.I. for 3
months and further R.I. for 20 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default,
to undergo S.I. for 6 months under sections 17/6 of POCSO Act.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that there is no allegation
said to be direct in nature, so far as the offence said to be committed by the
present appellant to attract the ingredient of section 6 of POCSO Act.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that if the entire story as per
the prosecution version even will be accepted then also there is no allegation
of commission of sexual assault by the present appellant but even then the
appellant has been convicted under section 17/6 of POCSO Act along with
Sections 366A, 376(3) r/w 34 of the I.P.C.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant, on the aforesaid premise, has submitted
that it is a fit case where the sentence is to be suspended.
5. While, on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence.
6. It has been contended that if the prosecution version will be taken into
consideration along with testimony of the victim, who has been examined as
P.W.1, it would be evident that the role of the appellant is of a facilitator,
since, he is the person who has commuted the victim (P.W.1) and
accompanied with the co-convict, namely, Touhid, thereafter she was
subjected to sexual assault.
7. It has been submitted that since the active role of the present appellant is
there, hence, it is incorrect on the part of the appellant that no ingredient of
Section 17/6 of POCSO Act is available. Therefore, it is not a case where the
sentence is to be suspended.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the findings
recorded by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment as also the
material available in the Lower Court Record along with material exhibits
therein.
9. This Court has found from the prosecution version that the victim was
subjected to sexual assault. The allegation against the present appellant is
that he has brought the victim for the purpose of accompanying with other
co-convict Tauhid, who had committed rape.
10.The argument, which has been advanced on behalf of the appellant that there
is no allegation said to attract section 17/6 of POCSO Act, which has been
considered by this Court and this Court after going through the section 9(g)
(explanation thereof) has found that involvement of any person who is
involved in furtherance of a common intention to commit rape will also be
implicated in the commission of crime of sexual assault.
11.The fact about the conduct of the present appellant to facilitate the
commission of sexual assault, even has not been disputed by learned counsel
for the appellant on the basis of material came against the appellant in course
of the trial.
12.The age of the child has conclusively been proved to be 15 years, which has
been proved on the basis of that attendance registered, which has been
proved by the Principal of said school, where the victim was studying.
13.This Court, considering the aforesaid fact, is of the view that it is not a case
where the sentence is to be suspended.
14.Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application stands dismissed.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Pappu-Amar/-
