The absence of legally admissible evidence regarding the victim's age and conflicting testimonies led to the decision to grant bail, emphasizing the necessity of credible proof in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

NAVNEET KUMAR, J.

I.A. No. 13269 of 2024

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

2. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for suspension of sentence of the appellant by enlarging him on bail during pendency of the instant criminal appeal, which has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 10.05.2024 and order of sentence dated 14.05.2024 passed in Sessions Trial No. 132 of 2018 arising out of Meharma P.S. Case No. 145 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1681 of 2017 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Godda whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 366-A IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 9 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and a default sentence of S.I. for 6 months.

3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the age of the victim has not been legally proved in order to ascertain as to whether the victim was minor or major to convict the appellant under Section 366-A of the IPC, although the Investigating Officer, who has been examined as P.W.7 has procured the certificate (Ext.4) from the Upgraded High School, Phirojpur, Meharma, Godda for determination of age of the victim as to whether she was minor or major in order to fasten the guilt of the appellant under Section 366A of the IPC but neither any official nor staff of the said school has been examined to prove the content of the alleged certificate to be true and as such Ext. 4 is not a legally admissible evidence in the eyes of law.

4. It has further been pointed out that the mother of victim (P.W.1) has categorically stated in para 8 of her cross examination that only she knew about the relationship of the appellant with her daughter. Further it has also been pointed out that the victim (P.W.2) has herself stated in her deposition that she was recovered from custody of Haroon and Parwez and not from the custody of this appellant, as evident from para 6 of her cross examination but neither Haroon nor Parwez have been examined on behalf of the prosecution nor they have been made accused.

5. It has further been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the truthfulness and veracity about the statements of the victim P.W.2 become doubtful in the light of the testimony of P.W.2-victim in para 7 where she stated that she did not know the appellant from before whereas the mother of the victim, who has been examined as P.W.1 categorically stated that she was the only person who knew about the relationship of the appellant with her daughter and therefore, the statement of the victim becomes doubtful.

6. Further, it has been pointed out that the victim P.W.2 has nowhere stated in her examination-in-chief that she was forced or seduced for illicit intercourse with another person as required under Section 366-A to fasten the guilty upon the accused therein. Further, it is pointed out that appellant is in custody since 10.05.2024 and he was all along on bail during the course of trial and, therefore, he deserves to be enlarged on bail.

7. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the contentions raised by the appellant and submitted that the victim has categorically stated in her examination-in-chief before the learned Trial Court that she was forcibly abducted by the appellant in a Bolero vehicle and therefore, the appellant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. Further, it has been pointed out that the certificate (Ext.4) of the school with respect to age of the victim was although not proved by any authority of the school but it has been procured by the Investigating Officer and therefore, the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant by taking into consideration the said document. Therefore, it is submitted that appellant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

8. Heard the parties, perused the record of the case including the trial court record, depositions of w