Jharkhand High Court
Deepak Rana vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 July, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.516 of 2023
-----
Deepak Rana .... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-------
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Purnendu Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P.
------
Order No. 04/Dated 19th July, 2023
I.A.(Cr.) No.5950 of 2023
This interlocutory application has been filed under
Section 389(1) of the Cr. P.C for suspension of sentence in
connection with judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 04.03.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-
III, Godda in Session Trial No.86 of 2020 arising out of Godda
(M) P.S. Case No.205/2020, corresponding to G.R. No.
1206/2020, by which the appellant has been convicted and
directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 30 years with
fine of Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 376(D) of the I.P.C. and
05 years R.I. under Section 452 of the I.P.C. with fine of
Rs.50,000/-, both the sentenced have been directed to run
concurrently.
2. Mr. Purnendu Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant, has submitted that it is a case where the
prosecution has miserably failed to substantiate the charge
against the appellant for commission of gang rape so as to
attract the ingredient of Section 376(D) of the Indian Penal
Code.
2.1 By referring to the testimony of PW-5, the victim, it
has been contended that the same cannot be said to be
inconformity with the allegation leveled in the F.I.R. and, as
such, the same cannot be said to be reliable.
2.2 It has further been contended by referring to the
testimony of the Doctor wherein no sign of rape has been
found.
2.3 Learned counsel for the appellant in the aforesaid
premise has submitted that it is a fit case where the order of
sentence in connection with Session Trial No.86 of 2020 may
be suspended.
3. While on the other hand, Mr. Shailesh Kumar
Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the State, has submitted by referring to the testimony of
the victim, PW-5, wherein she has supported the
prosecution version.
3.1 Further, the samples have been collected and sent
for its medical examination. The report of the Forensic
Science Laboratory, which has been marked as Ext. 14 and
14/1, wherein it has been reported that the semen found
on the clothes of the victim has been matched with the
semen of appellant Deepak Rana.
3.2 Learned counsel appearing for the State, in view of
such corroboration by the Forensic Science Laboratory, has
submitted that the prosecution version since has
conclusively been proved, therefore, the judgment of
conviction is and in that view of the matter, the instant
application is not fit to be allowed.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties,
perused the testimony of the witnesses available on the
lower court record as also the finding recorded by the
learned trial court in the impugned order.
5. We, on consideration of the testimony of PW-5, the
victim, have found that the prosecution version has been
supported which finds corroboration from the Ext. 14 and
14/1, the FSL report, wherein it has been reported that the
sample of the semen found on the cloth (petticoat) of the
victim has been found of the appellant Deepak Rana as also
the FSL report further refers that the sample of the semen
is of more than one person.
6. This Court, considering the corroboration by the
FSL report pertaining to the DNA profile, is of the view that
it is not a case where the appellant has been able to make
out a prima facie case for suspension of sentence.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the appellant is
rejected.
8. The instant interlocutory application, I.A.(Cr.)
No.5950 of 2023, is accordingly, dismissed.
9. It is made clear that any observation made herein will
not prejudice the case on merit as the appeal is lying pending
for its consideration.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Subhash Chand, J.)
Birendra/
