Vivek Kumar Ram v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.1293 of 2022 Vivek Ram @ Vivek Kumar Ram Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... … Petitioner …. …. Opp. Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND ------ : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, Advocate : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. For the Petitioner For the State -------- 06/25.07.2023 This criminal revision is under section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 against the order dated 22.08.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-1-cum-Children Court, Latehar in Criminal Appeal No.35 of 2022 whereby the prayer for bail of the petitioner which was refused vide order dated 05.07.2022 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Latehar
Legal Reasoning
in connection with Chandwa PS Case No. 39 of 2018 has been affirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. 2.
Legal Reasoning
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned JJ Board and the appellate court is based on the wrong appreciation of the evidence collected by the IO during investigation. There is no medical evidence to support the allegation of the rape and there is no evidence in regard to the pregnancy of the victim and also the child which was born; while the charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken by the concerned POCSO Court. It is further submitted that both the JJ Board and the appellate court has not considered the delay in lodging the FIR. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that in this case the victim who was raped by the son of Anita Devi in her house where she was working as a maid and she was also detained in the very house and she was not allowed to go out. She had also criminally intimidated, in case she disclosed his name in regard to the occurrence. Even the child was also born in the very house of mother of CCL who is petitioner herein. There is ample evidence against the petitioner that the rape was committed by the petitioner/accused and the delay in lodging the 2 Cr. Revision No.1293 of 2022 FIR was on account of the reason that the victim was not allowed to go out of the house where she was working as a maid and she was also criminally intimidated. Herein the contents of the FIR in brief are reproduced as 4. under: The FIR of this case was lodged by victim with the allegation that three years ago from the date of lodging the FIR father of victim had asked the victim to reside at the house of Anita Devi who was a social worker. Since the victim had no mother so at the behest of her father she began to reside at the house of Anita Devi. After death of mother of the victim her father was not mentally fit and he used to remain intoxicated. The occurrence is of 04.02.2017, Anita Devi told her that she was going to her parental to the house and would return next day. On the very day in the night in between 9:00 to 10:00 pm the son of Anita Devi namely, Vivek Ram, 23 years old caught hold of her and forcibly raped her. He had also criminally intimidated her in case she disclosed in regard to the occurrence to any one and also threatened to commit murder of her. She became fear stricken. Thereafter, Vivek Ram continued to rape her whenever he found her alone. Ultimately she told in regard to the occurrence to Anita Devi. In the meantime, she also became pregnant. Anita Devi also criminal intimidated her giving reference of her terms with the police administration. In month of October 2017, a baby girl was also born in the very house and, thereafter, Anita Devi took that child with her and told that she will keep that child in a protected place. Thereafter, she left the house of Anita Devi in October, 2017 and went to her maternal sister Sangita Devi's house. She did not tell in regard to this occurrence to her maternal sister. On 01.03.2018 she told in regard to the occurrence to Mukhiya and, thereafter, reached to Child Welfare Committee and ultimately, this FIR was lodged. 5. From the very perusal of the FIR, it is found that the victim had been residing at the house of Anita Devi at the behest of her father since she had no mother and she had been working as a maid in the house of Anita Devi. The son of Anita Devi, Vivek Ram committed rape upon 3 Cr. Revision No.1293 of 2022 her on 04.02.2017 and he had also criminally intimidated her in case she disclosed in regard to occurrence to any one so she became fear stricken and she disclosed in regard to the occurrence to Anita Devi and after that occurrence accused Vivek Ram continued to rape her whenever he found her alone. Victim had been residing to his house. Victim also became pregnant and a child was also born in the very house of Anita Devi. Even Anita Devi had also criminally intimidated her after having known in regard to the occurrence. Therefore the victim remained in house of Anita Devi after delivery of the child till October 2017 and, thereafter, she reached to the house of her maternal sister and, thereafter, reached to the Mukhiya of the village, she told in regard to the occurrence. So far as the delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, the same cannot be accepted as an inordinate delay reason being the victim was minor. She had no one to look after. She had been residing in the house of petitioner/accused as she was maid in the house of Anita Devi and the petitioner is the son of Anita Devi. 6. So far as the medical evidence is concerned in regard to commission of the rape, the very incident could not be disclosed just after its commission and the FIR was lodged after delivery of the child. Therefore, the medical evidence in regard to the pregnancy, even if, not on record but there is sufficient evidence on record that the child was given birth in the house of Anita Devi and there is also evidence in para-67 of the case diary in regard to giving birth to a child. It also came in statement of Chairman of Child Welfare Committee, Latehar that the child died on 30.12.2017. The independent witness Rajo Devi in her statement also corroborated the prosecution story. The victim in her statement under section 164 of Cr.PC also supported the prosecution story and in view of para-52 of the case diary it is stated that she had gone under the delivery in past. The petitioner who was child in conflict with law was 17 years old at the time of occurrence. Though the learned JJ Board has rejected the bail application keeping in view the gravity of the offence, the same cannot be ground for rejection of the bail. Yet the findings of learned appellate court that the child in conflict with law likely to come in association with known 4 Cr. Revision No.1293 of 2022 criminals and also expose to moral, physical or psychological danger and his release on bail would defeat the ends of justice appears to be proper in view of social investigation report. 7. Keeping in view, the evidence which was collected by the IO during investigation and the order passed by the learned appellate court by which the order of the JJ Board has also been affirmed needs no interference, accordingly, the bail application of the petitioner is rejected. 8. Criminal Revision No. 1293 of 2022 is dismissed. RKM (Subhash Chand, J.)