Mukesh Prajapati vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 2513 Jhar

                                 -1-


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.84 of 2023
Mukesh Prajapati                              ..... ... Appellant
                           Versus
The State of Jharkhand                       .... .... Respondent
                        --------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

------

For the Appellant      : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate
For the State          : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P.
                       --------
06/1 August, 2023
      st


I.A. No.6085 of 2023

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of

the appellant under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of

sentence in connection with judgment of conviction dated 18th

January, 2023 and order of sentence dated 19th January, 2023

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Chatra in S.T.

Case No.65 of 2019, whereby and whereunder the appellant has

been convicted for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and

has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven

years along with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of

fine amount, he was further directed to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for six months.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the

impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed

by the learned trial court is based on wrong appreciation of the

evidence. The learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence

on record in a proper perspective. It is further submitted that on

behalf of the prosecution, altogether 10 witnesses have been

examined and out of them, 6 witnesses including the husband of

the victim P.W.-5 Rajesh Kumar Napit have turned hostile. The

victim P.W.-7 though in her examination-in-chief supported the

prosecution story, yet in her cross-examination she stated that the

F.I.R. was lodged after five days of occurrence. The accused

resides in adjoining house of her in-law's house and he has

friendship with her husband. She also stated that when the

accused caught hold of her, she raised alarm and within 2 to 5

minutes, the persons of the locality attracted there, her husband

came first because the place of occurrence was nearby her house.

P.W.-8 is the I.O., and he in his cross-examination stated that he

has not prepared the site plan and he had recorded the statement

of two witnesses during investigation, who stated that there was

love affair between the victim and the accused. It is further

submitted that as per testimony of P.W.-9 Dr. Vinita Prasad, there

was no injury on the body or the private part of the victim. The

F.I.R. was also lodged after five days from the date of occurrence

and the learned trial court had not considered all these material

while convicting the appellant for the charge under Section 376

I.P.C.

3. Learned A.P.P. vehemently opposed the contentions made by the

learned counsel for the appellant and contended that certainly, six

witnesses in this case have turned hostile but the victim had

thoroughly corroborated the prosecution story, even if the P.W.-8,

the I.O. has stated that there was love affairs between the victim

and the accused for the same reason the accused had no right to

commit rape upon the victim.

4. As per prosecution case, the F.I.R. of this case was lodged by the

victim herself with the allegations that she had gone to respond

the call of nature on 23rd October, 2018 at 5:30 of morning. The

accused Mukesh Prajapati caught hold of her from behind and

raped her. She also sustained injury on her wrist of right hand,

back and elbow. She raised alarm and the persons of the locality

and her husband came and the accused fled away.

5. Though the victim in her statement supported the prosecution

story, yet she also stated that the place of occurrence was near

the bush which was uneven place, wherein she also sustained

injury on her wrist, back and elbow as well but the same is not

corroborated with the testimony of the P.W.-9 Dr. Vinita Prasad.

P.W.-8, the I.O. has also stated that there was extra marital

relation between the victim and the accused.

6. In view of the submissions made and keeping in view the

testimonies of P.W.8 (the I.O.) and P.W.9 (the Doctor), I am of the

view that it is a fit case for keeping the sentence in abeyance.

7. Accordingly, the I.A. No.6085 of 2023 stands allowed.

8. In consequence, thereof, the appellant Mukesh Prajapati is

directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of

Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of

the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional

Sessions Judge-III, Chatra in connection with S.T. Case No.65 of

2019.

9. It is made clear that any observation made in this order will not

prejudice the issue on merit as the appeal is lying pending for its

consideration.

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.84 of 2023

10. List this appeal for hearing as per seriatim.

(Subhash Chand, J.) Rohit