Jharkhand High Court
Murli Gope vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 August, 2019
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh, Kailash Prasad Deo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 283 of 2019
----
Murli Gope --- --- Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent
---
CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kailash Prasad Deo
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Vinay Kr. Tiwary, A.P.P.
---
05/05.08.2019 Heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey
and learned counsel for the State Mr. Vinay Kumar Tiwary, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The appellant Murli Gope has preferred this Cr. Appeal through Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee. The appellant has been convicted vide judgment of conviction dated 10th August 2018 passed in G.R. (POCSO) Case No.37/2017 by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa under Sections 376 (2)(i), 366A of the I.P.C. and Section 4/6 of the POCSO Act. The appellant has been awarded rigorous imprisonment for 12 years with a fine of Rs.20,000/- with default clause for the offence committed under Section 376(2)(i) of the I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for 8 years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default clause for the offence committed under Section 366A of the I.P.C. The sentence has been awarded both under Section 376(2)(i) of the I.P.C. and Section 4/6 of the POCSO Act jointly vide impugned order of sentence dated 13th August 2018.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that though the victim has been examined by the Medical Board, but no external injury has been found nor any tenderness or redness has been found as per the vaginal examination and the appellant is in custody since 25.12.2017 and as such, appellant may be enlarged on bail during pendency of this appeal.
Learned counsel for the State Mr. Vinay Kumar Tiwary, Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that Doctor has opined that the victim was aged 12 years of age and -2- there was sexual intercourse, though no mark of violence and foreign particle found in the private part or the body of the victim, but it is a case under Section 376(2)(i) of the I.P.C. and POCSO Act apart from Section 366A of the I.P.C. As such, appellant may not be enlarged on bail.
Considering the rival submissions of the parties as well as the medical evidence (Ext.3) brought on record, particularly of the victim (P.W.1) and evidence of the Doctor (P.W.3), we are not inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail made through I.A. No.2983/2019 is hereby rejected.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) (Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Shamim/