Suspension of sentence is justified where reasonable doubt exists regarding the prosecution's case, particularly considering the victim's mental state and circumstances surrounding the FIR.

ORDER :

IA No.6968 of 2024

This instant interlocutory application has been filed for suspension of sentence against the Judgment of conviction dated 25.06.2024 and order of sentence dated 28.06.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Giridih, in connection with POCSO Case No. 88 of 2021 arising out of Dumri P.S. Case No. 46 of 2021, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Sections 342, 354, 354A, 376(3) of the IPC and Section 4/8 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.20,000/- under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and further directed to undergo R.I. for a period of 6 months in default of payment of fine, and under Section 8 of POCSO Act, R.I. for 5 years along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, further directed to undergo R.I. for six months under Section 354 of IPC, R.I. for three years along with fine of Rs. 5000/- and in case of default of payment of fine further R.I. for three months and under Section 342 of IPC, R.I. for one year. No separate sentence has been passed under Section 354-A and 376(3) of IPC and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Period already undergone directed to be set off.

2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case which is evident from the testimony of P.W.-1, the victim and if the testimony of her brother, P.W.-4 is taken together.

3. It has further been contended that there is delay in instituting the F.I.R. of five days, however, it can be understood that in the matter of FIR due to the mental suffering of the victim, the FIR may not be filed immediately after the occurrence but here the factual aspect which is not in dispute as per the testimony of the witnesses that on the following day of the alleged date of occurrence of commission of rape a Panchayati was held for the settlement of the issue.

4. It has therefore been contended that when the matter has been brought in the Panchayat then what prevented the victim or her family members in instituting the FIR on the following day of the date of occurrence. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that this show the falsity of prosecution version.

5. It has further been contended by referring to the testimony of the P.W.-4 where he has deposed as has been recorded in Para 37 that if a sum of Rs.7 Lakhs would have been paid then the FIR could not have been instituted.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellant based upon the aforesaid grounds has submitted that this material are very much evident in doubting the prosecution version and as such it is a fit case for suspension of sentence.

7. While on the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence and contended by referring the testimony of P.W.-1, the victim and also the testimony of P.W.-4 that they have fully supported the prosecution version.

8. So far as the issue of Panchayat is concerned, it has been submitted that due to the mental trauma, the matter has not been reported to the Police rather the endeavors had been taken to settle these issue in the Panchayat.

9. Learned Spl. PP appearing for the State based upon the aforesaid ground has submitted that it is therefore not correct on the part of the appellant to take the ground that the prosecution has not succeeded in proving the charge beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence.

10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the findings recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned Judgment as also the testimonies of the witnesses available in the LCR and other material exhibits available therein.

11. This Court in order to appreciate the argument advanced on behalf of the parties has gone through the testimony of the victim, P.W.-1 who while making deposition has stated the date