Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1163 (JHR)

Ramesh Mal @ Aman Kumar Mal v. State of Jharkhand

2025-04-28

SANJAY PRASAD

body2025
ORDER : The present Criminal Revision No. 565 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the juvenile-petitioner by challenging the judgment dated 07.03.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2019 by Sri Choudhary Ahsan Moiz, learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Pakur whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Pakur has dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2019 by affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.12.2017 passed by Sri Sandip Kumar Bertam, learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Pakur in Mahespur P.S. Case No. 234 of 2015 corresponding to G. R. No. 1088 of 2015 [T.R. No. 30 of 2017] by which the juvenile-petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and sentenced to undergo to the Special Home for his detention for a period of three (3) years for the offences under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. 2. However, all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 3. I. A. No. 6082 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail, during pendency of the Criminal Revision Application. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned judgments and order of sentence passed by the learned Courts below are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted that the juvenile-petitioner is mental patient. It is submitted that before conviction, the juvenile- petitioner had remained in remand home from 18.05.2016 to 07.10.2016 i.e. for around four months. It is further submitted that the juvenile-petitioner has surrendered on 24.04.2024 i.e for about one year and he is in detention of the Remand Home since 24.04.2024 and as such, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 6. It is further submitted that the juvenile-petitioner has surrendered on 24.04.2024 i.e for about one year and he is in detention of the Remand Home since 24.04.2024 and as such, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 6. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the petitioner has committed rape upon the victim girl on the pretext of marriage and has established physical relationship with her for around three (3) months and hence, no illegality has been committed by the learned Courts below while passing the impugned judgments and order of sentence and as such, the prayer for bail may be rejected. 7. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the records of this case. 8. It appears from the Lower Court Records that the informant, who is the victim girl i.e. P.W.-7 has lodged the FIR against the petitioner on 01.12.2015 for the occurrence said to have taken place from the year 2014 till lodging of F.I.R. 9. It appears from the record that charge sheet was submitted on 21.07.2016 for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. Thereafter, the trial began before the J. J. Board, Pakur. 10. It transpires that during trial the prosecution got examined eight (8) witnesses, who were as follows: (i) PW-1 is Sapan Kumar Mandal, (ii) P.W.-2 is Arun Kumar Mandal, (iii) P.W.-3 is Abul Kalam Sheikh @ Kalam Sheikh, (iv) P.W.-4 is father of the Victim girl, (v) P.W.-5 is mother of the Victim girl, (vi) P.W.-6 is Dr. Navina Barla, (vii) P.W.-7 is Prosecutrix, Victim girl and (viii) P.W.-8 is ASI Surendra Kumar Singh and I.O. of this case. 11. The prosecution got exhibited the following documents, which were as follows:- (i) Ext.-1 is Medical report prepared by Dr. Navina Barla dated 01.12.2015, (ii) Ext.-1/1 is Medical examination report regarding age determination of victim dated 07.12.2015, (iii) Ext.-2 is Signature of Victim over written report dated30.11.2015. (iv) Ext.-3 is signature of victim-prosecutrix in statement under Section 164 of the Cr. P. C. dated 03.12.2015, (v) Ext-3/1 is the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr. P. C. on 03.12.2015, 12. (iv) Ext.-3 is signature of victim-prosecutrix in statement under Section 164 of the Cr. P. C. dated 03.12.2015, (v) Ext-3/1 is the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr. P. C. on 03.12.2015, 12. However, learned J. J. Board, Pakur has convicted the petitioner vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.12.2017 for the offences under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and passed the sentenced as mentioned above. 13. Even vide judgment dated 07.03.2024, learned Appellate Court below has affirmed the judgment and order of sentence passed by the learned Court below. 14. It further transpires that the petitioner was declared juvenile by the J. J. Board, Pakur on 18.08.2016 and his date of birth was found as 09.12.1999 issued by the In-charge Principal Middle School, Khagra Anchal, Maheshpur, Pakur. 15. It transpires from the records that PW-1, Sapan Kumar Mandal, P.W.-2, Arun Kumar Mandal and P.W.-3. Abul Kalam Sheikh @ Kalam Sheikh have been declared hostile by the prosecution. 16. P.W.-6 is the Dr. Navina Barla, who assessed the age of the victim girl as 17-18 years as per the opinion of the Medical Board, Pakur. 17. It appears that during trial, learned Principal Magistrate, J. J. Board, Pakur has not only written the name of the victim girl and but also has written the name of father and mother of the victim girl and this should have been avoided and learned Principal Magistrate, J. J. Board, Pakur must remain careful in future. 18. P.W.-7 is the victim girl, who although has supported the allegation of rape and for abortion of her pregnancy during her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. on 03.12.2015. However, she admitted that she has remained in the house of the petitioner for around three (3) months continuously and she has not raised any claim and she has also performed marriage with the juvenile-petitioner in Kali Mandir, Pakur. 19. It appears that during trial, no prescription was filed to show termination of pregnancy of the victim girl by the prosecution. 20. It also appears from the evidence of P.W.-4 i.e. the father of the Victim Girl that he was not aware of taking away of the victim girl by the petitioner from his house for the purpose of marriage atleast for three (3) months. 20. It also appears from the evidence of P.W.-4 i.e. the father of the Victim Girl that he was not aware of taking away of the victim girl by the petitioner from his house for the purpose of marriage atleast for three (3) months. He also admitted that even one rape case was instituted upon the father of the juvenile- petitioner by one Lady Smt. Late, which has been disposed of. 21. It appears from the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. that the petitioner has married with her forcibly in Vaisakh in 2014 (i.e. April/May, 2014) and she remained in his house till Ashvin (i.e. September/October, 2014) and established physical relationship with her due to which she became pregnant and three months pregnancy was aborted by administering medicine by father, mother and uncle of the petitioner and after abortion she was ousted from the house of the petitioner and thereafter the FIR was lodged on 01.12.2015 i.e. after delay of much delay. 22. It is surprising that mother of the victim girl had not informed the father of the victim girl regarding abduction of the victim girl. 23. It also appears from the evidence of P.W.-6 i.e. Dr. Navina Barla, who assessed the age of the victim girl as per the opinion of the Medical Board as 17-18 years that at best, this is a case of consensual relationship. 24. It appears that the juvenile- petitioner has remained in remand home from 18.05.2016 to 07.10.2016 i.e. for four months. It further appears that the juvenile-petitioner has surrendered on 24.04.2024 and he is in detention of the Remand Home since 24.04.2024. 25. Therefore, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the juvenile petitioner, Ramesh Mal @ Aman Kumar Mal is directed to be released on bail in care and supervision of his Natural Guardian and Father namely Binay Kumar Mal on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25. Therefore, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the juvenile petitioner, Ramesh Mal @ Aman Kumar Mal is directed to be released on bail in care and supervision of his Natural Guardian and Father namely Binay Kumar Mal on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Sri Sandip Kumar Bertam, learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Pakur/or his Successor Court in Mahespur P. S. Case No. 234 of 2015 corresponding to G. R. No. 1088 of 2015 [T.R. No. 30 of 2017] subject to condition that the father of the juvenile- petitioner will submit his mobile number and self-attested copy of his Aadhar Card before the learned Court below, which he will always keep active and will not change it, during the pendency of this case, without prior permission of the Court and shall produce the juvenile-petitioner as and when required. 26. Thus, I. A. No. 6082 of 2024 is allowed and stands disposed of. 27. Put up this case after eight weeks.