Imroj Pawaria vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the

State on the prayer for suspension of sentence made through I.A. No. 5302 of 2019.

Sole appellant stands convicted in Sessions Trial no. 64 of 2017 by the impugned judgment dated 26th June, 2018 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Lohardaga for the offence punishable under Section 376 of I.P.C and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with a default sentence by the impugned order of sentence dated 28th June, 2018.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that P.W.-4 is the victim and informant as per whose Fardbeyan rape was committed upon her six months before by this appellant while parents were away and thereafter repeated forcible sexual intercourse was committed by him, as a result of which she became pregnant. Thereafter, on insistence for marriage appellant was ready for marriage, but his father and grandfather were not ready. During deposition P.W.4 states that she was married from before with Salauddin, who has died. Rape was committed with her for two months repeatedly. She was threatened and when she became pregnant appellant refused to marry her. It is submitted that the Doctor, who examined this victim on 2nd March, 2017 one day after institution of Fardbeyan found her to be carrying pregnancy of 24 weeks i.e., 6 months and no injury on her external body or private parts. As per P.W.7, Investigating Officer on 14th March, 2017 victim's age was recorded as 19 years. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 have turned hostile. P.W.9, who was earlier Investigating Officer has also stated that apart from the victim and father, no one else has supported her case during investigation. From the evidence on record, it, therefore, appears that the victim had entered into consensual sexual intercourse after death of her first husband and later on instituted this case after she became pregnant. As such, appellant should be enlarged on bail during pendency of this appeal.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for bail on merits. He submits that the victim has supported her case during trial and the medical report of P.W.6, Dr. Smriti has shown that she was carrying 24 month of pregnancy. However, age has not been assessed since the matter was referred to the Medical Board. Therefore, appellant, who has enticed the victim to enter into forcible sexual intercourse over a period of time, has rightly been convicted for the charge. Therefore, appellant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail during pendency of this appeal as he has served custody for two and half years only since the date of institution of F.I.R

We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and State, perused the material evidence on record relied upon by the parties and also taken note of the aforesaid facts and circumstances.

From perusal of the record, it appears that initially the case of the victim was that she had been subjected to forcible sexual intercourse for a period of 6 months and that on insistence the appellant was ready to marry, but it was opposed by father and grandfather of the appellant. From the statement of P.W.7, Investigating Officer, it appears that on 14th March, 2017 during investigation her age was recorded as 19 years. Doctor has found no external injury or on the private part of the victim.

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail during pendency of this appeal. He has also served custody two and half years till date. Accordingly, let the appellant, Imroj Pawaria be released on bail, during pendency of this appeal, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Lohardaga in connection with Sessions Trial no. 64 of 2017 arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 11 of 2017 (G.R.No. 128 of 2017), subject to the condition that appellant and his bailors will not change their address without prior permission of Trial Court.

I.A. No. 5302 of 2019 stands allowed accordingly.

The Secretary, D.L.S.A, Lohardaga should submit a report within a period of 4 weeks whether victim compensation has been awarded to the informant/prosecutrix as per the order of sentence passed by learned Trial Court.