Jharkhand High Court
Moti Sk vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 331 of 2023
Moti Sk. ... Appellant
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
For the Appellant :- Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
For the State :- Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate
For the Informant :- Mr. Haider Ali, Advocate
...
03/16.10.2023: IA (Cri.) No. 9314 of 2023
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for
the State as well as the learned counsel for the informant on the interlocutory
application filed by the appellant for suspension of sentence during the
pendency of this criminal appeal.
2. This criminal appeal was directed against the judgment of conviction
dated 26.04.2023 and the order of sentence dated 28.04.2023, passed by the
learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pakur in Sessions Trial No. 115 of 2021,
whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted under sections 316/
323/ 325/ 341 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and to pay fine
of Rs.5,000/- for offence under section 316 of IPC and in default of payment of
fine he shall further undergo SI for 6 months and further sentenced to undergo
RI for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for offence under section 325 of
IPC and in default of payment of fine he shall further undergo SI for 2 months
and further sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-
for the offence under section 323 of IPC and in default of payment of fine he
shall further undergo SI for 1 month and further sentenced to undergo RI of 15
days and to pay fine of Rs.100/- for the offence under section 341 of IPC, in
default of payment of fine he shall further undergo SI of 10 days. All the
sentences shall run concurrently.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out initially that the
medical evidence indicates that she was not referred to the government hospital
but the report is from private hospital. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the
appellant has submitted regarding the evidence of PW-6, who is the IO of this
case and pointed out that she had obtained the medical test report of the victim
Jhumera Bibi and that on 19.06.2021, she obtained supplementary injury
report from Sadar Hospital, Sonajori. In her cross-examination, she has stated
that at the time of incident FIR was lodged and at that time there was no child
in the stomach of informant. She has further stated that at the time of FIR there
was no medical report. When the informant came she was not injured so she
was not sent for medical treatment. She has further stated that all the medical
reports were given by the informant. She has further stated that the informant
did not give any type of medical report regarding pregnancy of 4 months. The
learned counsel has then referred to the evidence of PW-5 who is the doctor
and pointed out from his evidence. PW-5 has deposed that on 18.06.2021 while
he was posted as Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Pakur he examined the
victim Jhumera Bibi, aged about 32 years. He has further deposed that opinion
about injury, bleeding PV and clot present with 15-16 weeks pregnancy was
reserved till USG report and opinion of lady doctor was not submitted. Further
the investigation report USG plate no. 549 and its report from Pakur Nursing
Home and Mentally Centre dated 20.05.2021 stated by Dr. Kunal Kumar Singh
shows written product of conceptions, Echogenic collection of 18 mm. Further
the discharge ticket of Sadar Hospital, Pakur with registration no.720/FW
dated 25.05.2021 with admission dated 19.05.2021 shows D & C done for in
complete abortion done by Dr.Domnica Marandi and discharge by her. The
learned counsel has then referred to the evidence of the husband of the
informant-victim DW-1 and pointed out from his evidence that before the
incident his wife had a miscarriage due to illness and this case was done under
conspiracy by his father, uncle and cousin. This witness has further deposed
that Moti Sk. had filed a case against his father, uncle and cousin and due to
which a false case was filed through his wife. This witness has further deposed
that he has good relation with his wife and she lives with him. In such
circumstances, the learned counsel for the appellant is seeking suspension of
sentence, during pendency of this criminal appeal. The learned counsel has
further submitted that the appellant has been in custody from the date of
conviction i.e 26.04.2023 and prior to that, he has been in custody for 7
months.
4. Learned counsel for the informant has opposed this interlocutory
application for suspension of sentence, during the pendency of this criminal
appeal and has submitted that the injury that was incurred by the victim was
grievous in nature. The learned counsel has further referred to the evidence of
PW-4 and has submitted that in her evidence she has supported the prosecution
case fully and she has been consistent, therefore, suspension of sentence should
not be granted.
5. The learned counsel for the State has also opposed this interlocutory
application and has supported the arguments advanced by the learned counsel
for the informant.
6. Having gone through the records of the case, considering the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering
the period of custody already spent by the appellant and in the facts and
circumstances of the case, I am inclined to suspend the sentence of the
appellant, during pendency of this criminal appeal, and accordingly, present
appellant, named above, is ordered to be released on bail, during pendency of
this criminal appeal, on executing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Five Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pakur in Sessions Trial No.
115 of 2021.
7. Accordingly, IA (Cri.) No. 9314 of 2023 stands disposed of.
S.B. (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
