ROHIT KUMAR SINHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Bhaskar Trivedi, learned counsel for the informant on the renewed prayer for suspension of sentence made by this appellant through I.A. No. 3485 of 2022.

(2.) Sole appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 6 of POCSO Act and Sec. 366A of I.P.C by the impugned judgment dtd. 5/3/2019 passed in POCSO Case No. 15 of 2016 by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Spl. Judge, POCSO Cases, Chatra and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years each under both Ss. of POCSO Act and I.P.C with a fine of Rs.50,000.00 and 25,000/- respectively and default sentences by the impugned order of sentence dtd. 26/3/2019.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the primary ground for renewed prayer for suspension of sentence is that the appellant has remained in custody for about half of the sentence of 10 years awarded upon him. He submits that he was taken into custody on 10/6/2016 and thereafter released on 2/6/2017. Again he was taken into custody on 25/9/2018 and he has been in custody after his conviction till date. In total, he has completed about 8 days less than 5 years of custody. He has further submitted that the evidence adduced by the prosecution during trial shows that the Doctor (P.W.7), who examined her, has found a case of old tear of hymen and there was no bleeding from private part. No Spermatozoa was found. No definite opinion of rape could be given. It is submitted that there was divergence in the statement of prosecution witnesses and the assessment of age through Radiological examination. The victim herself has stated her age to be 11 years, while her age was found to be between 15½ to 16½ years upon Radiological examination. It is further submitted that as per the victim, while she was cooking, she had gone out in the morning on being called by the appellant and taken on a vehicle. It is highly unlikely that the victim was forcibly taken away in the morning hours in the presence of other neighbours and family members without her consent. In any case, the appellant has remained in custody for about half of the sentence. Therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. Appeal is unlikely to be taken for hearing in the near future. Therefore, appellant may be left to incarcerate unnecessarily for long period.