Jharkhand High Court
Ram Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 31 August, 2023
1
Cr. Appeal(DB)No.672/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.672 of 2023
------
Ram Kumar, aged about 25 years, Son of Late Sundarlal
.... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Sahil, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Amrita Kumari, A.P.P.
------
04/Dated: 31.08.2023
I.A. No.4137 of 2023
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section
389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence dated 13.03.2023
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Koderma, in
connection with Sessions Trial No.73 of 2022 arising out of Jainagar
P.S. Case No.02 of 2022, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has
been convicted under Section 120-B, 366(A) and 370(4) of the IPC and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years for the offence under Section
120-B of the IPC and fine of Rs.10,000/-, further to undergo R.I. for
seven years for the offence under Section 366(A) of the IPC and fine of
Rs.12,000/- and further to undergo R.I. for 14 years for the offence
under Section 370(4) of the IPC and fine of Rs.25,000/- and all the
sentences run concurrently.
2. Mr. Sahil, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has
Cr. Appeal(DB)No.672/2023
submitted that it is the case where there is no evidence having been
brought by the prosecution to establish the charge either of the sections
under which, the appellant has been convicted, but, without taking into
consideration the aforesaid fact, the appellant has been convicted.
3. It has been contended by referring to the testimony of the victim
who has not shown any attributability said to attract the offence under
Section 366(A) or Section 370(4) of the IPC.
4. The further submission has been made that only allegation has
come against the appellant that he has solemnized marriage with the
victim, save and except, there is no allegation, if the testimony of the
entire prosecution witnesses will be taken into consideration together.
5. In addition to that, one Mangeeta Devi has been granted bail. But
he has further submitted by referring to the order passed by this Court
while suspending the sentence with respect to Mangeeta Devi who
happens to be accused no.1 that she has been granted bail not on
merit, rather, on the ground that one three years child was also
languishing in judicial custody with her.
6. While on the other hand, Mrs. Amrita Kumari, learned A.P.P.
appearing for the State of Jharkhand has submitted that it is a case
where the specific allegation has been surfaced in course of trial from
the testimony of the prosecution witnesses including the victim who has
been examined as P.W.2, is minor as has been assessed to be the age
of 14 years.
7. It has further been submitted by referring to paragraph nos.3, 6
and 15 to 17 of the testimony of P.W.2, the victim, wherefrom, it is
Cr. Appeal(DB)No.672/2023
evident that the direct complicity of the appellant is there, based upon
which, the judgment of conviction has been passed, hence, it cannot be
said that there is no ingredients either of Section 366(A) or Section
370(4) of the IPC.
8. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State, on the aforesaid premise,
has submitted that it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone
across the finding recorded by the learned trial Court in the impugned
judgment as also the testimony of the witnesses and other documents
available in the lower court records.
10. It appears from the testimony of the victim, as referred under
paragraph nos.3, 6 and 15 to 17 that while corroborating the
prosecution version, she remained consistent even in the cross-
examination.
11. The victim has also been examined under Section 164 of the
Cr.P.C., wherein also, she has supported the prosecution version.
12. It appears from the aforesaid paragraphs more particularly
paragraph-6 that the victim has specifically deposed in course of trial
that she was threatened to give deposition otherwise, she will be killed.
13. The specific allegation against the appellant is that he has given
sixty thousand rupees to one Rajendra Kumar in lieu of the victim and
thereafter, solemnized marriage with her, as per the material available
on record based upon the testimony of the witnesses.
14. This Court, on consideration of the aforesaid specific
attributability, as has come against the appellant, is of the view that it is
Cr. Appeal(DB)No.672/2023
not a case where the sentence is to be suspended.
15. Accordingly, interlocutory application being I.A. No.4137 of 2023
stands dismissed.
16. It is made clear that any observation made herein will not
prejudice the issue on merit as the appeal is lying pending for its
consideration.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Rohit/-
