The court affirmed conviction based on corroborative evidence from FSL reports, despite contradictions in medical testimony, establishing that consistent witness accounts support the prosecution's narrative beyond reasonable doubt.

ORDER :

I.A. No. 1593 of 2025

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for keeping the sentence in abeyance in connection with the judgment of conviction dated 16.09.2022 and order of sentence dated 27.09.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1-cum-Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Koderma in connection with Special POCSO Case No.06 of 2021, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted under section 376(AB) of the IPC and under Section 4 (2)of the POCSO Act as also Section 6 read with section 5(m) of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 25 years and a fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence under Section 376(AB) of the IPC and in default of payment of fine further directed to undergo SI for two years, RI for 22 years and a fine of Rs.15,000/- for the offence under section 4(2) of the POCSO Act and in default of payment of fine further directed to undergo SI for one year, and all the sentences will run concurrently. However, no further sentence is awarded to the appellant under Section 6 read with Section 5 (m) of the POCSO Act in view of section 42 of POCSO Act.

2. It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case due to land dispute between the family of the present applicant and the victim.

3. It has been contended that it is a case where the doctor has not supported the prosecution story and even though the doctor has not found any sign of rape or any injury upon the body of the victim, but the applicant has been convicted for commission of the offence said to be committed by him under Section 376(AB) of the IPC and section 4(2) of the POCSO Act.

4. It has been contended that even the material evidence is the testimony of the victim and the other witnesses and even then without giving any consideration to the contradiction part in the testimony of the said witnesses the order of conviction has been passed, and, therefore, the conviction of the applicant cannot be said to be based upon the principle for proving the charge beyond all reasonable doubts. As such, it is a fit case where the sentence of the present applicant may be suspended.

5. While, on the other hand, Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned APP appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence.

6. It has been contended by the learned APP that the prosecution version has fully been supported by the victim who is aged about 7-8 years at the time of occurrence. It has been contended that other material witnesses have fully supported the prosecution version.

7. It is also submitted that the FSL reports also substantiate the commission of crime of rape/sexual assault and, as such, there is no error in the impugned judgment and, hence, it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the findings recorded by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment as well as the testimony available in the lower Court records, as also the materials exhibit, particularly, FSL reports which have been marked as Exts.9 and 9/1 as available therein.

9. It is evident from the materials available on record that the age of the victim is assessed to be 7 years, a student of Class-III. The victim has been examined as PW1. Her statement prior to her examination as PW1 has been recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C and the signature over the same has been marked as Ext.3. She has fully supported the p