2025:JHHC:20914 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.212 of 20 25 ------ Victim of Deoghar Town P.S. Case No.724/2016 .... .... …. Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Asin Kumar Das, son of Ajit Kumar Daw, resident of Village Mohalla Castair’s Town of Deoghar, near Surya Clinic, Deoghar, P.O. & P.S. Deoghar, District Deoghar (Jharkhand) .... .... .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Appellant : Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajay Kumar Pathak, A.P.P. ------ Order No.04 Dated : 29.07.2025 Instant criminal appeal is preferred under Section 14(A) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 whereby and whereunder the petition under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the learned Special Judge. 2. Brief facts leading to present case is that Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No.724/2016 was registered under Sections 376, 323, 354B, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(w) (i), 3(w) (ii) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the basis of complaint filed by the victim lady aged 39 years which was forwarded under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. by the Court concerned. The incidence allegedly took place for last one year before 10.11.2016 in which opposite party no.2 on false promise and assurance to get the job in Municipal Corporation to the complainant, sexually harassed on different dates by establishing physical relationship with her. 3. Police on investigation, found the case true and submitted charge sheet. After cognizance, charge was framed on 23.06.2022 and the sole accused was put on trial. 4. Altogether four witnesses were examined, out of which informant was examined on 18.11.2022 and another witness was examined on 17.06.2023. The evidence was closed on 20.07.2024. Thereafter, statement of the accused person was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and the case was posted for three consecutive dates for defence evidence, when the recall petition was filed. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of appellant that the 2025:JHHC:20914 husband of the complainant and one Ajhola Devi has remained to be examined for which the instant petition was filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. 6. Learned A.P.P. for the State has defended the impugned order. 7. At the outset, it may be noted that there is mandate under Section 14(3) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2001 to conclude the trial within two months and so far, practicable trial to be held on day-to-day basis. 8. Here in the present case, charge was framed on 23.06.2022 and the prosecution evidence was closed on 20.07.2024. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C and three adjournments were granted for defence evidence. As such belated stage petition under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. was filed. Accused is also entitled to speedy trial under Constitution of India. No cogent reason has been assigned for delay in addressing the prosecution evidence as the witness is closely related to the prosecutrix. 9. Under the circumstance, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Criminal Appeal accordingly stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, is disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit