Jharkhand High Court
Amarjeet Singh @ Chhotu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 March, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 258 of 2020
-----
1. Amarjeet Singh @ Chhotu
2. Bhakt Bandhu Paun @ Bhakta Bandhu Pan Vikash @ Raju @ Sukhu Paun ..... ... 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. R. S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P.
------
Order No. 06/Dated 13th March, 2024 I.A. (Cr.) No. 1518 of 2024
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed by the appellant no. 1 namely Amarjeet Singh @ Chhotu under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence dated 23.01.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - I, West Singhbum at Chaibasa in connection Special POCSO Case No. 01 of 2019 arising out of Noamundi P. S. Case No. 01 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 376DA, 376(2)(n)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 376DA of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, assisted by Mr. Nishant Kumar Roy representing the appellant no. 1 Amarjeet Singh @ Chhotu on whose behalf the present application has been filed for suspension of sentence, has 2 submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge said to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts, since, there is wide contradiction in the testimony of the witnesses. It has further been submitted that there is no ingredient said to attract either Section 376DA/376(2)(n)/34 of the Indian Penal Code or Section 6 of the POCSO Act, but the learned trial court without appreciating the aforesaid facts has passed the judgment by conviction against the appellant under the aforesaid offences.
3. It has further been submitted that the appellant no. 1 is languishing in judicial custody since the month of January, 2019 and based upon the same the prayer has been made for suspension of sentence in connection with the present case.
4. While, on the other hand, Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and it has been submitted that the application so filed by the appellant no. 2, namely, Bhakt Bandhu Paun @ Bhakta Bandhu Pan Vikash @ Raju @ Sukhu Paun making a prayer for suspension of sentence has already been dealt with by learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and while taking into consideration the evidence of P.W. - 4, victim, such prayer has been rejected. It has further been submitted that the age of the victim is in between 15 to 16 years. It has also been contended that the gravity of the offence, as has been proved by the prosecution so far as the appellant no. 1 is concerned, is more serious in comparison to that of 3 the appellant no. 2. Therefore, it is not a fit case where the present application is to be allowed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through the findings recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment as also testimony as available in the record.
6. This Court in order to appreciate the argument advanced on behalf of the parties has considered the testimony of P.W. - 4, victim and found therefrom that she has fully supported the prosecution version and remained consistent in her cross-examination. It has been deposed by her that she was subjected to rape by both the accused persons. The medical report also corroborates the aforesaid version.
7. The case of the appellant no. 2 namely Bhakt Bandhu Paun @ Bhakta Bandhu Pan Vikash @ Raju @ Sukhu Paun has already been dealt with by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and as would appear from the order dated 06.06.2022 passed in I.A. No. 2073 of 2022, the prayer for suspension of sentence of the appellant no. 2 has already been rejected.
8. This Court, taking into consideration the testimony of P.W.
- 4, victim, as also considering the fact that the allegation against the appellant no. 2 whose prayer for suspension of sentence has already been rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.06.2022 passed in I.A. No. 2073 of 2022 on the ground that P.W. - 4 has deposed about the commission of offence by taking the 4 name of the appellant no. 1 also along with the appellant no. 2, is of the view that there is no reason to take different view so far as the appellant no. 1 is concerned.
9. Accordingly, Interlocutory Application being, I.A. (Cr.) No. 1518 of 2024 stands dismissed.
10. It is made clear that the observation herein has been made prima facie only for the purpose of consideration of suspension of sentence and it will not prejudice the case of the appellant since the appeal is lying pending before this Court for its consideration
11. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the appellant through Jail Superintendent.
12. The appeal will be listed in due course.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Umesh/