Jharkhand High Court
Sumit Toppo vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 December, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1068 of 2024
Sumit Toppo, aged about 22 years, S/o- Subodh Toppo, R/o- Village Haradipa,
P.O and P.S. - Chainpur, District- Gumla -- --- Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Appellant : Md. Razaullah Ansari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P. Order No.06/ Dated 2nd December, 2024 I.A. No. 10315 of 2024 The aforesaid instant interlocutory application has been filed for suspension of sentence of the appellant in connection with the judgment of conviction dated 30.06.2023 and order of sentence dated 06.07.2023 passed in Children Case No. 4 of 2022 arising out of Chainpur P.S. Case No. 32 of 2020 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Gumla whereby and whereunder, the appellant along with one other has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376DA of the I.P.C. read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 20 years with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- under Section 6 of the POCSO Act read with Section 376DA of the IPC and in default thereof, further directed to undergo imprisonment for 6 months.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is a case where none of the ingredients of Section 376DA of the IPC or Section 6 of the POCSO Act has been found to be there on the basis of the testimony of the witnesses.
3. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the medical report is also not supporting the prosecution version.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon aforesaid grounds, has submitted that it is fit case where sentence is to be suspended.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence.
6. It has been contended by the learned A.P.P. by referring to the 1 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1068 of 2024 testimony of P.W.3- the victim, who has specifically alleged against the present appellant along with Amarjeet Tirkey, Ritesh Chik Baraik and Iliyash Minz of having committed the rape. It has also been contended that the doctor has also supported the prosecution version by giving her opinion that commission of rape cannot be ruled out. Further, the DNA profile is also supporting the prosecution version
7. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone across the findings rendered by the learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment. We have also gone through the testimonies of the witnesses and the materials exhibits available in the L.C.R.
8. We, in order to appreciate the argument advanced on behalf of the parties have considered the testimony of the victim P.W.3, who has supported the prosecution version regarding the attributability of the appellant in the commission of rape along with Amarjeet Tirkey, Iliyash Minz and Ritesh Chik Baraik.
9. Further, the doctor -P.W.11 has also supported the prosecution version in her opinion by stating that sexual assault cannot be ruled out. Further, the DNA profile has also supported the prosecution version.
10. This Court, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances is of the view that appellant has not been able to make out a prima facie case in his favour.
11. Accordingly, the prayer of the appellant for suspension of sentence made through I.A. No. 10315 of 2024 is rejected
12. It is made clear that any observation made herein will not prejudice the issue on merit as the appeal is lying pending for its consideration.
13. Consequently, I.A. No. 10315 of 2024 disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.) A.Mohanty 2 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1068 of 2024