Kuldeep Sao vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 2780 Jhar

                                 -1-

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.108 of 2023
Kuldeep Sao                                   ..... ... Appellant
                           Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Pinki Devi                                  .... .... Respondents
                        --------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate For the State : Mr. V.K. Vashitha, Spl. P.P.

--------

th 04/10 August, 2023 I.A. No.2117 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 and order of

sentence dated 21st December, 2022 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge-III, Chatra in Sessions Trial No.11 of

2022, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted

for the offence under Section 354(B) of the Indian Penal Code and

has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five

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 senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that F.I.R.

of this case was lodged by the victim herself but there is

contradiction in her statement made in the F.I.R. and the

statement given under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. as well.

Further she also exaggerated the prosecution story during her

examination before the trial court. As such her testimony could be

said to be tainted even though the F.I.R. was lodged for the

offence under Sections 341, 323, 354-B, 376 and 511 of the I.P.C.

and charge-sheet was also filed in the said sections of IPC but the

conviction was held for the offence under Section 354-B of the

I.P.C. It is further submitted that since the appeal is of the year

2022 and the same is not likely to be heard in near future, the

sentence may be kept in abeyance and the appellant may be

enlarged on bail during pendency of the appeal.

3. Learned Spl. P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the

contentions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and

contended that the prosecution story is well corroborated with the

testimony of the victim and other witnesses. As such, the

impugned order passed by the learned trial court does not bear

any infirmity and the present interlocutory application may be

dismissed.

4. The prosecution case is that on 4th October, 2020, the

informant/victim had gone to forest for grazing cattle and when

she was returning at 07:30 a.m. near Chhariya Mahua forest, the

accused came and caught hold of her and began to outrage her

modesty. On being objected by the victim, he assaulted her with

fist and also tried to take off her saree with intent to commit rape.

On raising alarm, the accused fled away and she came to her

house and narrated the story to her family members and the F.I.R.

was lodged.

5. The victim was examined as P.W.-4 during trial and in her

statement before the trial court she exaggerated the prosecution

story and also stated in regard to committing rape by the accused.

She also stated that on raising alarm, Mamta Devi and Manijar

Paswan also came there while in F.I.R. she did not say that on

raising alarm anyone had attracted there. The statement of victim,

who herself lodged the F.I.R. varied from her statement given

under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and also before the trial court. So far as

the injury on the body part of the victim are concerned, the other

prosecution witnesses and Doctor have corroborated the

prosecution story.

6. In view of the discussions made hereinabove and considering the

fact that this criminal appeal is not likely to be heard in near

future, I am of the view that it is a fit case for keeping the

sentence in abeyance.

7. Accordingly, the I.A. No.2117 of 2023 stands allowed.

8. In consequence, thereof, the appellant abovenamed 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 Sessions Trial No.11 of 2022.

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.108 of 2023

10. List this appeal for hearing as per seriatim.

(Subhash Chand, J.) Rohit