Jharkhand High Court
Gladson Kujur Son Of Ajit Kumar Kujur vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 August, 2024
Author: Ratnaker Bhengra
Bench: Ratnaker Bhengra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal(SJ) No. 123 of 2024
Gladson Kujur son of Ajit Kumar Kujur, resident of Mouza- Chatranji,
Tupudage, P.O. & P.S.- Tupudag, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand)
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shweta Singh, APP
For the Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate
--------
08/28.08.2024
I.A. No. 5241 of 2024
Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
The instant Interlocutory Application has been filed by the appellant with a prayer for grant of bail to the appellant during the pendency of this criminal appeal after suspending the sentence imposed against him vide the impugned judgment of conviction dated 13.02.2024 and order of sentence dated 16.02.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge ( POCSO Act), Bokaro in Special POCSO Case No. 25 of 2022 ( arising out of Sector 12 P.S. Case No. 114 of 2021); whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under sections 109/366A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 07 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine the appel- lant is further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of three months, however, the appellant has been acquitted under section 17/8 and 17/12 of the POCSO Act.
The facts of the case as claimed by the appellant pertaining to the ap- pellant is that it is alleged that the victim who is a minor girl had come into relationship with a person from Chhattisgarh by the name of Sanat Kumar Nishad while Online Gaming and thereafter they had become friend and the Sanat Kumar Nishad had invited her to Chhattisgarh and then she had trav- eled from Bokaro to Ranchi and then the appellant Gladson Kujur had come to Khel Gaon and gone along with her to the Khadgara Bus Stand and there- after she had boarded the Bus and gone to Chhattisgarh to meet Sanat Kumar Nishad.
The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the charges were initially also framed apart from section 366A/109 IPC for under section -2- 17/12 and under section 17/8 of the POCSO Act. The counsel has then sub- mitted that this appellant was acquitted for the offences under the POCSO Act and, therefore acquitted of any harassment or sexual assault or the abet- ment thereof. Counsel, therefore, says that the same grounds or the reason- ing may also be applicable for the offences alleged under sections 366A/109 IPC wherein section 109 IPC has also to do with abetment. Learned counsel further submits that as per section 366A IPC the main criteria is induce- ment as well as knowledge that she will be forced to have illicit intercourse with someone else. Counsel also submits that there is no evidence regarding inducement and also there is no evidence that appellant had knowledge that she will be forced to have illicit intercourse with someone else. There is also no evidence that illicit intercourse has taken place. Apart from that, counsel has stated that in the FIR, the appellant is not named and he had not gone to her house in Bokaro and taken her from Bokaro rather the victim had al - ready left her house in Bokaro and then she had communicated to her mother via Whatsup which is on record, therefore, victim has left Bokaro on her own volition and thereafter when she had come to Ranchi, she had taken the as- sistance of this appellant in boarding the bus to Chhattisgarh for which it cannot be said that the appellant had in very motivated manner helped her in boarding the Bus and thereby alleged offence has occurred against the minor girl. It is further submitted that in the statement made under section 164 Cr. P. C the victim has also stated that she had come to know Rahul, counsel says that he is another person and not Sanat Kumar Nishad and therefore there is some inconsistency, however she had come to know this person via Online Game and then developed friendship and thereafter she had come to Ranchi and then she had called Gladson Kujur and then the appellant had gone to Khel Gaon to board the Bus of Chhattisgarh. The learned counsel for the appellant then submits that the active role of the victim is present she had called Gladson Kujur and Gladson Kujur had only gone in response to her calling him. Learned counsel for the appellant has then submitted that it is only during investigation that CDR have figured on the basis of which the appellant has been dragged into this case, however as per section n 65B of the Evidence Act nothing has been proved regarding the CDR. The learned counsel has submitted that as per victim PW 1, her evidence is more or less in line with that she has stated in the statement made under sec - tion 164 Cr.P.C. which does not help her in any way.
-3-The learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has, on the other hand, argued that as per evidence of PW 1 the victim was induced by the appellant in go- ing to Chhattisgarh. It is further submitted that even the sections under POC- SO Act are no longer against the appellant, his conviction has been done un- der section 366A and 109 IPC. He has further submitted that the other co-ac- cused Sanat Kumar Nishad was also convicted under section 366A and since the victim was induced in boarding the Bus to go to Chhattisgarh, therefore, the appellant is fully guilty and rightly convicted for the offence under sec- tion 366A along with 109 IPC. It is further submitted that being a minor, the consent of the victim is immaterial in the case.
The learned counsel for the State has also referred to her counter affi- davit and also opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence and pointed out that the evidence is that the CDR links the appellant along with other named accused who has been convicted, therefore the appellant is fully liable for the crime and he does not deserve the suspension of sentence Having heard both the counsels, gone through the records of the case, noted the submissions, gone through the sections involved and its contents and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant, above named, is ordered to be released on bail, during pendency of this appeal, on executing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five Thousand Only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge ( POCSO Act), Bokaro in Special POCSO Case No. 25 of 2022 aris- ing out of Sector 12 P.S. Case No. 114 of 2021, subject to the condition that the appellant shall submit self-attested photocopy of his Aadhar Card and mobile number before the learned court below which he will always keep ac- tive and will not change it during pendency of the case without prior per- mission of the Court.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 5241 of 2024 stands allowed and disposed of.
(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Sharda/