2025:JHHC:20811 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1490 of 2003 Surendra Hembrom, S/o Bablu Hembrom, R/o Village- Kendua, PS- Poraiyahat, Sub-Division and District- Godda. .... .. ... Appellant(s) Versus The State of Jharkhand. .. ... ...Respondent(s) ........... CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ......... For the Appellant (s) : Ms. Rajni Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, PP …... 22/ 28.07.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 1. The instant Cr. Appeal (SJ) has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge, Godda, in Sessions Case No.78 of 2001 [G.R. Case No.563 of 2000 arising out of Godda [Poraiyahat] P.S. Case No.88 of 2000. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, it is alleged that the victim girl, aged about 14 years had gone for grazing cattle on 03.06.2000 and thereafter was kidnapped by the appellant and three others and took her to Village- Kendua and confined her in the house of one Surendra Hembrom. It is further alleged that rape was committed upon her by the appellant on the false pretext of marriage. On the next day, mother and other family members came and rescued her from the house. 3. On the statement of the victim-girl, Godda [Poraiyahat] P.S. Case No.88 of 2000 was registered under Sections 363, 366A and 376/ 34 IPC against the appellant and two others. 4. The Police after investigation found the case to be true and submitted charge-sheet. Thereafter the accused/ appellant was put on trial and convicted as aforesaid, against which, the instant Cr. Appeal has been preferred. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant and the victim come from the Tribal community and it was a case of consensual elopement on a promise of marriage. Therefore, she seeks to confine her argument on the point of sentence. 2025:JHHC:20811 2 6. It is further submitted that for the special reason that it was a case of consensual physical relationship and that more than 24 years have elapsed since the date of incidence and no useful purpose will be served by sending the appellant again for imprisonment at this stage. 7. Learned PP for the State while defending the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence has submitted that the minimum sentence under the provisions of Section 376 of the IPC in the earlier Code was seven years and in special cases, the sentence would have been reduced i.e. less than seven years. 8. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, I find force in the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that after such a long time since the date of incidence, no useful purpose will be served by sending the appellant again into the custody to serve the remaining part of the sentence. The appellant has already undergone imprisonment for more than 2 years 10 months. 9. Under the circumstances, the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone. The instant Cr. Appeal (SJ) stands dismissed with modification in the sentence, as aforesaid. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/