Chotan Khan vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary assisted by learned counsel Mr. Rohit Agarwal and learned counsel for the State Mr. Hardeo Prasad Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor.

The sole appellant along with two others namely Sanju Ranjan and Imroz Khan have been held guilty under Section 376(D) of the I.P.C vide judgment of conviction dated 11th February 2019 passed by learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti and the appellant Chotan Khan has been awarded rigorous imprisonment for 20 years along with a fine of Rs.25,000/- with a default clause whereas other co-accused Sanju Ranjan and Imroj Khan have been awarded rigorous imprisonment for 25 years along with a fine of Rs.50,000/- and a default clause vide order of sentence dated 18th February 2019 passed in Sessions Trial No.23 of 2017/29 of 2017.

The appellant Chotan Khan has filed I.A. No.5488/2019 for grant of bail by suspending the sentence during pendency of appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the victim has been examined as P.W.6 and she has categorically stated that the occurrence has taken place on 13th July 2016 when she was taken by the driver of the vehicle Imroz Khan and committed rape on her. Thereafter other accused persons Sanju Ranjan and Jamil were vigilant and have not committed anything bad against her. She has further stated in paragraph-6 of the cross-examination that she can identify the accused Imroz Khan and Sanju Ranjan as the driver of the tempo. About the 3rd accused person in the dock Chotan Khan (appellant) she has categorically stated that he has not committed anything wrong with her. Learned counsel for the appellant has further stated that the victim had admitted in paragraph-14 of her cross-examination that she has come along with a boy and established physical relation but the same boy has not solemnized marriage and she has not filed any case against him. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court towards paragraph-21 of the cross examination of the victim where she has categorically exonerated the appellant Chotan Khan by saying that he came along with the villagers and again she has stated that he was present at the place of occurrence. Further she has stated that this Chotan Khan was not present at the time of occurrence. Learned counsel for the appellant has thus submitted that the appellant who is in custody since 26.09.2016, may be enlarged on bail by suspending his sentence as the appellant has a good case of appeal and there is no specific averment against the appellant so far as the evidence adduced by the victim is concerned.

Learned counsel Mr. Hardeo Prasad Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that this appellant was present at the place of occurrence and as such his involvement cannot be denied.

After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the State and on perusal of the material evidence brought on record, it appears that victim has not alleged anything so far as the appellant is concerned and the specific allegation is against Imroz Khan, Sanju Ranjan and Jamil. So far as this appellant is concerned, there is contradictory evidence regarding his presence. As such, appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail, Accordingly, we are inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail during pendency of the appeal, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount, each, to the satisfaction of Learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti in connection with S.T. Case No.23 of 2017/29 of 2017 with the condition that one of the bailors should be close relative of the appellant. The appellant and his bailors shall furnish the mobile numbers before the learned trial court and shall not change their mobile numbers and addresses without prior permission of the learned trial court. I.A. No.5488/2019 stands disposed of.

Learned A.P.P. is directed to file an affidavit regarding the whereabouts of co-accused Jamil who is absconding since 8th March 2017. Let such affidavit be filed within a period of four weeks.