Jharkhand High Court

Raja Rawani @ Raj Kumar Rawani vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 September, 2025

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 198 of 2024
                                   With
                          I.A. No. 5511 of 2025
                                  ---------

1. Raja Rawani @ Raj Kumar Rawani, aged about 21 years.

2. Sonu Rawani, aged about 20 years.

Both are sons of Subhash Rawani, resident of Godhar Rawani Basti, P.O and P.S. Kenduadih, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand.

                                                     ... ... Appellants
                                  Versus
   The State of Jharkhand                           ... ... Respondent
                                  ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

----------

For the Appellants : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Santosh Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.

-----------

th 12/Dated: 08 September, 2025

I.A. No. 5511 of 2025:

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of

appellant no.2, namely, Sonu Rawani for suspension of sentence in

connection with the Judgment of conviction dated 29.01.2024 and

order of sentence dated 31.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge-I cum Special Judge, Children Court, Dhanbad in

Children Case No. 15 of 2022, in connection with Kenduadih P.S.

Case No. 128 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, the appellant no.2

has been convicted and sentenced under section 6 POCSO Act to life

imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000 each and in default of payment

of fine, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for further period of six

months. The appellant no.2 has further been sentenced under 376D

IPC for a term of twenty years and a fine of Rs. 10,000 each and in

default of payment of fine, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for

further period of six months. Both the sentences have been directed

to run concurrently.

Factual Matrix:

2. The prosecution story, in brief, requires to be referred herein which

read as under:

The prosecution case is that the victim 'X' aged about 15

years, and as per the FIR victim 'X' became friend of Akash Kumar

Verma aged about 19 years since last one month. Akash Kumar

Verma had fallen in love with the victim 'X' and started saying for

getting marriage with her. Akash Kumar Verma started talking by his

mobile no. xxxxxx4321 on mobile no. xxxxxx7684 of victim 'X'.

On 24.09.2019 at about 6:30 pm Akash Kumar Verma called

victim to come in Hatia (Market). The victim 'X' along with her

younger sister victim 'Y' aged about 14 years went to Kendua Hatia

(market). Akash Verma took them by his Pulser motorcycle towards

Rajkiya Madhya Vidyalaya, Nayadih situated at Kusunda, Godhur

Rawani Basti. Meanwhile four friends of Akash Verma namely Raja

Rawani, Sonu Rawani (appellant no.2/applicant herein), Ankit

Rawani and Prem Rawani also arrived there, who had already met

with victim 'X'. The school gate was closed at that time. They

pushed up the victims and entered into school through boundary

wall. They took the victims on upper floor of the school and victim

in fear of death had gone with them. The room of school was closed.

Firstly, Akash Verma opened cloth of lower part of the victim and

committed wrong and thereafter all other four persons committed

wrong one after another with both the sisters, the victims. The

victims could not raise alarm due to fear.

They gave threatening to the victims at about 9:00 pm for not

saying the said fact to anyone. All accused persons left them and

went away from school. One boy arrived there and helped them to

come out. Both the victims came at their home, who were suffering

with pain. They could not move to police station in night due to fear.

They went to police station on 25.09.2019 on advice of all. The

victims do work along with their mother as house maid.

3. On the basis of the written report of informant/ victim 'X', police

case has been registered bearing Kenduadih P.S. case no. 128/2019

dated 25.09.2019 u/s 376-DA, 506 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO

Act against five accused persons namely Akash Kumar Verma, Raja

Rawani, Sonu Rawani, Ankit Rawani and Prem Rawani.

4. The I.O. submitted charge-sheet bearing charge-sheet No. 169/2019

dated 22.11.2019 U/s 376 DA, 506 I.P.C. and Section 6 of POCSO

Act against accused persons namely Akash Kumar Verma, Raja

Rawani, Ankit Rawani and Prem Rawani and kept open further

investigation against Sonu Rawani (applicant herein).

5. The I.O. submitted supplementary charge-sheet bearing charge sheet

no. 179/2019 dated 29.12.2019 against Sonu Rawani (applicant

herein) for the offence punishable u/s. 376DA, 506 of IPC and 6

POCSO Act. The CICL Raj Kumar Rawani @ Raja Rawani was

declared juvenile in conflict with law vide order dated 18.01.2020 by

the Special Judge (POCSO), Dhanbad. The CICL is found 17 years

01 Month, 09 days old on the date of occurrence (i.e. on 24.09.2019).

The supplementary case record of CICL Raja Rawani was opened

and sent to JJB, Dhanbad.

6. The prima-facie case was made out against CICL Sonu Rawani u/s.

376DA, 506 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act vide order dated

03.01.2020. Learned Juvenile Justice Board, Dhanbad has passed an

order on 10.06.2019 holding that the juvenile in conflict with law is

involved in heinous offence and they are above 16 years old and

below 18 years and able to understand the consequences of crime.

7. Accordingly, the JJB, Dhanbad transferred the record to Special

Court of Children for trial of CICL as an adult. The CICL Sonu

Rawani (applicant herein) was declared juvenile vide order dated

03.03.2020 passed by Special Judge (POCSO) Dhanbad. The

juvenile Sonu Rawani was 17 years old as per the report of Medical

Board. The supplementary record was sent to JJB, Dhanbad. The

supplementary record bearing GR No. 2383/2020 of CICL Sonu

Rawani has been amalgamated with the case record of GR

No.303/2020 of Raj Kumar Rawani @ Raja Rawani.

8. The charges have been framed U/s 376-DA IPC & Section 06 of

POCSO Act which were explained to the CICL in Hindi to which the

CICL did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.

9. Accordingly, the trial proceeded and the present applicant/appellant

Sonu Rawani with another accused namely Raj Kumar Rawani @

Raja Rawani was found guilty by the learned trial court and

accordingly, have been convicted and sentenced under section 6

POCSO Act to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000 each and in

default of payment of fine, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for

further period of six months.

10. The appellant no.2, namely, Sonu Rawani (applicant herein) has

further been sentenced under 376D IPC for a term of twenty years

and a fine of Rs. 10,000 each and in default of payment of fine, to

suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for further period of six months. Both

the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

11. The present application has been filed on behalf of applicant/

appellant no.2 Sonu Rawani for suspension of sentence during

pendency of the appeal.

Submission on behalf of the appellant no.2:

12. Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant no.2, at

the outset, has submitted that earlier the prayer for suspension of

sentence of the applicant/appellant no.2 had been dismissed as not

pressed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated

07.05.2024 passed in I.A. No. 4377 of 2024.

13. Thereafter, again the prayer for suspension of sentence had been

renewed by filing I.A. No. 11651 of 2024 which had again been

dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide order dated 07.01.2025.

14. Thereafter, the present interlocutory application has been filed on

behalf of appellant no.2 renewing the prayer for suspension of

sentence on the ground that the judgment of conviction is without

considering the facts and circumstances of the case as the appellant

no.2 is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case.

15. It has been submitted that if the testimony of both the victims will be

taken into consideration, it would be clear from their statement that

they have not uttered anything against the present applicant/appellant

which the learned trial court has failed to take into consideration.

16. It has also been submitted that the other co-accused persons, namely,

Akash Kumar Verma; Prem Rawani @ Prem Kumar Rawani and;

Ankit Rawani who have been tried separately in Special (POCSO

Case no. 147 of 2019 have been granted bail by the co-ordinate

Bench of this Court vide orders dated 31.08.2022; 10.11.2022 and;

18.01.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 491 of 2022 [I.A. No.

6953 of 2022]; Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 541 of 2022 [I.A. No. 8458 of

2022] and; Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 681 of 2022 [I.A. No. 10064 of

2023], respectively.

17. The ground of custody has also been taken as the appellant no.2 is

languishing in judicial custody since 06.11.2019.

18. Learned counsel for the appellant no.2, on the aforesaid premise, has

submitted that, therefore, it is a fit case for suspension of sentence so

that the appellant no.2 be released from judicial custody.

Submission on behalf of the Respondent:

19. While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

appearing for the respondent-State has submitted that the victim 'X'

has stated categorically about commission of rape committed by the

accused persons. Victim 'Y' was minor below the age of 16 years at

the time of occurrence who has also stated about the offence of rape

during trial. The victims have specifically stated that the accused

persons committed rape forcibly one by one in a school and the place

of occurrence has been established by the investigating officer.

20. He has further submitted that so far issue of parity is concerned it is

settled position of law that the parity is a rule of prudence, not of

law, and the court must independently evaluate the facts and

circumstances of each case, therefore, plea of parity cannot be made

universally applicable and further herein, since the accused/applicant

no.2 has been tried separately and the cogent evidence has been led

against him therefore also the parity will not be applicable herein.

21. The learned counsel for the state has contended that since the

evidence led against the present appellant is cogent and concrete, as

such, the instant application is not fit to be allowed.

22. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the aforesaid premise, has

submitted that, therefore, it is not a fit case for suspension of

sentence, as such, the present interlocutory application may be

rejected.

Analysis:

23. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appreciated the

submission made on behalf of both the parties.

24. Before entering into merit of the contentions of the parties, it would

be apt to refer herein the settled proposition of law that there is

difference in between grant of bail in case of pre-trial arrest and

suspension of sentence, post- conviction. In the earlier case, there

may be presumption of innocence, which is a fundamental postulate

of criminal jurisprudence and the courts may be liberal, depending

on the facts and circumstances of the case, however, in case of post-

conviction bail, by suspension of operation of the sentence, there is a

finding of guilt and the question of presumption of innocence does

not arise. For ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid

judgment is being quoted as under:

"35. There is a difference between grant of bail under Section 439 CrPC in case of pre-trial arrest and suspension of sentence under Section 389 CrPC and grant of bail, post conviction. In the earlier case, there may be presumption of innocence, which is a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence, and the courts may be liberal, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, on the principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception, as held by this Court in Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. [Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 22 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 675] However, in case of post- conviction bail, by suspension of operation of the sentence, there is a finding of guilt and the question of presumption of innocence does not arise. Nor is the principle of bail being the rule and jail an exception attracted, once there is conviction upon trial. Rather, the court considering an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, is to consider the prima facie merits of the appeal, coupled with other factors. There should be strong compelling reasons for grant of bail, notwithstanding an order of conviction, by suspension of sentence, and this strong and compelling reason must be recorded in the order granting bail, as mandated in Section 389(1) CrPC."

25. Thus, it is evident from the ratio of the aforesaid judgment, that

during considering the suspension of sentence which is the post-

conviction stage, the presumption of innocence in favour of the

accused cannot be available and at this stage, the Court's only duty is

to see that whether the prima-facie case is made out or not against

the applicant/appellant.

26. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled proposition of law this Court

is now adverting to the fact of the instant case in order to ascertain

that whether prima facie case for suspension of sentence is made out

or not.

27. Admittedly herein on the basis of the written report of informant/

victim 'X', police case has been registered bearing Kenduadih P.S.

case no. 128/2019 U/S 376-DA, 506 IPC and Section 6 of the

POCSO Act against five accused persons.

28. The I.O. submitted charge-sheet bearing charge-sheet No. 169/2019

dated 22.11.2019 U/s 376 DA, 506 I.P.C. and Section 6 of POCSO

Act against accused persons namely Akash Kumar Verma, Raja

Rawani, Ankit Rawani and Prem Rawani and kept open further

investigation against Sonu Rawani (applicant herein).

29. Later on, the I.O. submitted supplementary charge-sheet against

Sonu Rawani (applicant herein) for the offence punishable u/s.

376DA, 506 of IPC and 6 POCSO Act and further the Juvenile

Justice Board, Dhanbad has passed an order holding that the juvenile

in conflict with law is involved in heinous offence and he was above

16 years old and below 18 years and able to understand the

consequences of crime. Accordingly, the JJB, Dhanbad transferred

the record to Special Court of Children for trial of CICL as an adult.

30. The CICL Sonu Rawani (applicant herein) was declared juvenile

vide order dated 03.03.2020 passed by Special Judge (POCSO)

Dhanbad. The supplementary record of Sonu Rawani was sent to

JJB, Dhanbad and has been amalgamated with the case record of Raj

Kumar Rawani @ Raja Rawani (another CICL). The charges have

been framed U/s 376-DA IPC & Section 06 of POCSO Act which

were explained to the CICL in Hindi to which the CICL did not

plead guilty and claimed to be tried.

31. Accordingly, the trial proceeded and the present applicant/appellant

Sonu Rawani with another accused namely Raj Kumar Rawani @

Raja Rawani was found guilty by the learned trial court and

accordingly, have been convicted and sentenced under section 6

POCSO Act to life imprisonment.

32. From perusal of the impugned order of conviction it is evident that

both the victims have been examined as PW.1 and P.W.7 and they

have categorically stated about the culpability of the present

applicant.

33. P.W.1 in his testimony had stated that Akash Rawani took both of

them by his motorcycle from hatia to Godhur Rawani Basti near a

Government School where four boys also arrived. They took both the

sisters inside the school through boundary. They took them at the

roof of school and all five accused committed rape on her. All

accused committed rape with her sister, victim Y. They committed

rape forcibly. The victims became unconscious after commission of

rape.

34. Further, Victim 'Y', P.W. 7 has stated in her evidence that Akash

had taken her towards school situated in Rawani Basti by a bike. He

took her sister, Victim 'X' also by a bike. He took them over roof of

the said school where five boys namely Sonu, Raja, Prince and Ankit

were present. All committed wrong with them. All committed rape

one by one on her as well as on her sister. She has stated that four

boys Sonu, Raja, Prince and Akash committed wrong with her. The

victim 'Y' identified CICL as Sonu Kumar, who was produced from

Observation Home. The CICL disclosed his name as Sonu Rawani.

35. The aforesaid testimony of the both the prosecutrix has fully been

substantiated by the testimony of P.W.2 who had stated in her

testimony that her husband came at home in night at 10.00 PM and

asked about Victim 'X' and Victim 'Y', then she told him that Raja

and Sonu have taken them towards the pond. She has stated further

that both daughters arrived at home and she saw blood stain over

their cloths. The daughters narrated that Akash had taken them

towards Hatia School by bike where four persons namely Sonu,

Raja, Prem and Ankit were also present and all five persons

committed rape with her daughters.

36. Further it is evident from order impugned that the medical report of

Victim 'Y' goes to show that she was minor, below the age of 16

years, on the alleged date of occurrence.

37. Further, the law is well settled that the evidence of the prosecutrix

needs to be analysed and examined carefully. But a woman who is a

victim of sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime. Her

evidence cannot be tested with suspicion as that of an accomplice.

As a matter of fact, the evidence of the prosecutrix is similar to the

evidence of an injured complainant or witness. The testimony of the

prosecutrix, if found to be reliable, by itself, may be sufficient to

convict the culprit and no corroboration of her evidence is necessary.

In prosecutions of rape, the law does not require corroboration. The

evidence of the prosecutrix may sustain a conviction.

38. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the statement of the

prosecutrix, if it "inspires confidence" and is free from major

infirmities, is sufficient by itself for conviction--even in the absence

of corroborative evidence. Corroboration is not a legal requirement,

but rather a matter of judicial prudence depending on the

circumstances. In Ganesan v. State, (2020) 10 SCC 573, it has been

observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that where testimony of victim

is found reliable and trustworthy, reiterated, conviction on the basis

of her sole testimony is permissible.

39. Thus, from testimonies of prosecutrix and other evidences available

on record, prima-facie, the culpability of the present

applicant/appellant no.2 in the alleged commission of crime cannot

be denied.

40. The learned counsel for the applicant has raised the issue of parity

and had submitted that other accused persons, who have been tried

separately as they were major at the relevant time and have also been

convicted for the alleged by the learned trial Court, have been

enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. In support

of his statement, he had annexed the order by which prayer for

suspension of the sentence of the accused persons have been allowed

by the co-ordinate Bench.

41. Per contra, learned counsel for the state has submitted that the parity

is a rule of prudence, not of law, and the court must independently

evaluate the facts and circumstances of each case, therefore plea of

parity cannot be made universally applicable and further herein since

the accused/applicant no.2 has been tried separately and the cogent

evidence has been led against him therefore also, the parity will not

be applicable herein.

42. Thus, question arises herein that if two co-accused are convicted in

two different Sessions trials for the same incident, can one seek

suspension of sentence on the ground of parity with the other who

has already obtained it?

43. It is settled connotation of law that Court cannot exercise its powers

in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of

circumstances before granting bail and by only simply saying that

another accused has been granted bail is not sufficient to determine

whether a case for grant of bail, on the basis of parity, has been

established. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment

rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs.

Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana, (2021) 6 SCC 230 wherein it has

been held as under:

"25. We are constrained to observe that the orders passed by the High Court granting bail fail to pass muster under the law. They are oblivious to, and innocent of, the nature and gravity of the alleged offences and to the severity of the punishment in the

event of conviction. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527], this Court has held that while applying the principle of parity, the High Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail."

44. Further, it needs to refer herein that parity is a rule of prudence not

strict law. We are conscious with the settled position of law that the

courts prefer to maintain consistency among the similarly placed co-

accused and further the parity cannot be applied in a capricious

manner and before applying the principle of parity the Court has to

consider the totality of circumstances and by only simply saying that

another accused has been granted bail is not sufficient to determine

whether a case for grant of bail on the basis of parity has been

established. However, different sessions trials complicate the matter

because the evidence, witness testimonies and findings may vary

hence, parity is not automatic.

45. For in depth appreciation of the contention of the learned counsel for

the applicant on the issue of parity, we have gone through the order

dated 31.08.2022 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 491 of 2022 by

which prayer for suspension of sentence of the co-accused, Akash

Kumar Verma, has been allowed wherefrom it is evident that while

allowing the prayer for suspension of sentence the co-ordinate Bench

has taken into consideration the testimony of the victims and has

held that the evidence P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 seems to have diluted the

role played by the appellant, for ready reference the relevant

paragraph of the aforesaid order is being quoted as under:

"Although in the First Information Report allegations have been levelled upon the appellant of being one of the miscreants who had committed rape upon the informant and her sister, but the evidence P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 seems to have diluted the role played by the appellant.

On such consideration therefore, we are inclined to admit the appellant on bail. Accordingly, during pendency of this appeal, the appellant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned trial court [Special Judge -POCSO, Dhanbad] in connection with Special POCSO Case No. 147 of 2019. I.A. No. 6953 of 2022 stands allowed and disposed of."

46. Thus, from the aforesaid paragraph as quoted hereinabove it is

evident that co-ordinate Bench while allowing the prayer for

suspension of sentence has based its finding upon the evidence led in

aforesaid sessions trial i.e. Special POCSO Case No. 147 of 2019.

However, the said session trial has arisen out from the same incident

but the evidence led in the said trial cannot be made applicable

herein.

47. Further, in the preceding paragraph as this Court has categorically

observed that in the instant case there is cogent and reliable evidence

led by which, prima-facie, the culpability of the present applicant has

been established and this Court has utmost duty to rely upon the

evidence led in the instant case, therefore, it is considered view of