Jharkhand High Court
Johan Nag vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 January, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1389 of 2024
--------
Johan Nag, aged about 22 years, son of Sri Neta Nag, resident of village
Kewda, P.O. & P.S. Murhu, District Khunti, Jharkhand
.. … Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent
—–
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
——–
For the Appellant : Mr. Prabhat Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, APP
--------
th
Order No. 03/ Dated: 07 January, 2025
IA No.11519 of 2024
1. The said instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of
the appellant for suspension of sentence in connection with POCSO Case
No.03 of 2021 corresponding to Murhu P.S. Case No. 122 of 2020 against
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.12.2022 passed
by learned Sessions Judge, Khunti, whereby and whereunder the appellant
has been convicted under 452, 323, 341, 354, 376, 504, 506/34 of the IPC,
1860 and under Section 4/6 of POCSO Act and sentenced the appellant to
undergo R.I. for three years for offence under Section 452 IPC along with
fine of Rs.10,000/-. The appellant was further sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for six-six months each for the offences under Section 323,
504 and 506 of IPC. The appellant was further sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for one month for offence under Section 341 IPC. The
appellant was further sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years along with
fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence under Section 354 IPC. The appellant was
further sentenced to undergo R.I. for twenty years along with fine of
Rs.10,000/- for offence under Section 6 of POCSO Act and in default of
payment of fines, the appellant was further sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for one years for each fine awarded and further be pleased to
enlarge the appellant on bail on furnishing surety/sureties to the
satisfaction of the Hon’ble Court during the pendency of the present
criminal appeal.
2. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that it is a case
where the appellant has falsely been implicated reason being that the
testimony of PW-3 itself wherein she has not supported the entire
prosecution version. It has been submitted that the version of the PW-3 if
taken into consideration in entirety, it will be said to be a case of consensual
relationship. It has further been submitted that age of the victim has not
conclusively been proved so far as the juvenility of the victim is concerned
and as such since it is a case of consensual relationship, hence the entire
prosecution version itself is doubtful and in that view of the matter, the
appellant deserves to be released on bail after suspension of sentence.
3. While on the other hand, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing
for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail on the
ground that the PW-3 has fully supported the prosecution version. It has
been submitted that even accepting the version of the argument of the
learned counsel for the appellant that there is no conclusive finding
regarding the age of the victim as per the statutory mandate as provided
under Section 94 of the J.J. Act but even then the conviction since is based
upon Section 376 of the IPC and if the testimony of PW-3 will be taken into
consideration in entirety then it would be evident that the victim has been
subjected to physical relationship repeatedly and due to fear, she had not
disclosed the same thing which does not mean that the repeated physical
relationship will amount to consensual relationship. Learned counsel for the
State based upon the aforesaid ground has submitted that it is therefore not
a fit case for suspension of sentence.
4. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone
across the findings recorded by learned trial Court in the impugned
judgment passed as also the testimony of the witnesses as available in the
Lower Court Record and report of the doctor who has been examined as
PW-2.
5. This Court has considered the testimony of PW-3 where from it is
evident that the victim has supported the prosecution version by deposing
that she was subjected to sexual relationship with coercion and due to the
fear, she even has left out her study. It has further come in the testimony of
PW-3, the victim that the appellant used to threaten that if the occurrence
will be reported to anybody she will face the dire consequence even the
death and setting her residence on fire.
2 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1389 of 2024
6. The question of the age has been raised. We are conscious of the
statutory mandate that regarding the determination of the age for the
purpose of juvenility, the procedure has been laid down under Section 94 of
J.J. Act 2015. However, no process as per the mandatory command appears
to be followed but here the conviction is also under Section 376 of IPC for
which the age is not a material factor so as to fail the prosecution. The
testimony of PW-3, the victim since has supported the prosecution version
and even the doctor has corroborated the version of the PW-3 and as such
we are of the view that the argument which has been advanced that merely
because there is no conclusion of the age having been arrived at by the
prosecution then the entire prosecution version will fail cannot be said to
be correct argument in view of the fact that conviction is also under Section
376 of the IPC which is being supported by the PW-3 as such according to
us it is not a fit case where the sentence is to be suspended.
7. In consequence thereof, the instant interlocutory application i.e. I.A.
No. 11519 of 2024 stands rejected and as such disposed of.
8. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not
prejudice the case on merit, since, the criminal appeal is pending before this
Court for its consideration.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Basant/ S. Das
3 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1389 of 2024
[ad_1]
Source link