Jharkhand High Court
Roushan Kumar @ Raushan Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 March, 2023
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Subhash Chand
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.A. (DB) No. 284 of 2023
Roushan Kumar @ Raushan Kumar ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... ... ... Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Santosh Kumar Soni, Advocate For the State : None
------
Order No. 03/Dated 22nd March, 2023 I.A. No. 2178 of 2023 The present Interlocutory Application has been filed for condonation of delay of 158 days in filing the instant appeal.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.
No counter affidavit has been filed opposing the prayer for condoning the delay.
Having regard to the averments made in this application, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation.
Accordingly, I.A.No.2178 of 2023 is allowed and delay of 158 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. I.A. No. 2177 of 2023
This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for 2 suspension of sentence passed in consequence of the judgment of conviction dated 12.07.2022 and order of sentence dated 18.07.2022 in Special (POCSO) Case No. 24 of 2019 by learned Special Judge (POCSO), Jamshedpur, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life which shall mean imprisonment for remainder of his natural live and to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- for committing offence under Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code, in default of fine the convict was directed to undergo R.I. of two years separately.
Mr. Santosh Kumar Soni, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that although it is a case of Section 376 DA of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act i.e., the case of gang rape of minor girl but as would appear from the testimony of doctor, as mentioned at paragraph 22 of the impugned judgment, that no sign of sexual intercourse at the time of examination was found and not any external sign on the body was found but the impugned order has been passed without taking into consideration the medical report.
This Court having heard learned counsel for the appellant calls upon the respondent to file objection, if any, to the interlocutory application filed by the appellant, named above, as to why the sentence inflicted upon the appellant, be not kept in abeyance. 3
Such response be filed within two weeks. Let this matter be listed on 6th April, 2023.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Subhash Chand, J.) Alankar/-