Thursday, 14, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Krishna Swarnkar @ Krishna Kr. ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 4003 Jhar

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 4003 Jhar
Judgement Date : 16 October, 2023

Jharkhand High Court
Krishna Swarnkar @ Krishna Kr. ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 October, 2023
                                     1


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                         Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 712 of 2023

                                      With

                            I.A. No. 4262 of 2023
                                   ---------

Krishna Swarnkar @ Krishna Kr. Swarnkar ....... Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ....... Respondent

---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

----------

For the Appellant : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate Mr. Naresh Prasad Thakur, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Shweta Singh, A.P.P.

-----------

th 06/Dated: 16 October, 2023 I.A. No. 4262 of 2023:

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for keeping the sentence in abeyance in connection with the judgment of conviction dated 05.04.2023 and order of sentenced dated 06.04.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge POCSO Act, Dhanbad in Spl. (POCSO) Case No. 74 of 2020 arising out of Kenduadih P.S. Case No. 95 of 2020, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo maximum punishment of rigorous imprisonment for twenty years for the offence punishable under Section 4(2) of POCSO Act along with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the appellant has further been directed to undergo additional imprisonment for one month.

2. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is a case where the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge said to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt since the P.W.-1, the victim, has herself been inconsistent what she had stated in the FIR and the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and further in the testimony recorded in course of trial.

It has been contended that there is no reference of any allegation of commission of rape if the allegation would be taken from perusal of the FIR as also the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the appellant, on the aforesaid premise, has submitted that it is a fit case where the sentence is to be suspended.

3. While, on the other hand, Mrs. Shweta Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence by making reference of the testimony of P.W.-1, the victim girl, who in course of her examination has specifically supported the prosecution version about the commission of crime and has also deposed that she was subjected to rape.

It has further been contended by referring to the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein at paragraph-24 it has been stated by the victim girl that the content of 164 Cr.P.C. statement was never been read over to her and she merely put her signature, hence, 164 Cr.P.C. statement even if there is no version of victim girl of commission of no rape, the same will have no aid to the appellant for the purpose of suspension of sentence said to prevail upon the testimony of P.W.-1 wherein she has supported the commission of crime committed by the appellant.

4. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the version of P.W.-1 in course of trial wherein she has narrated the entire story in course of deposition that the appellant had entered her house and had closed the door of the house. The appellant removed her entire dress and started molesting her. She fell on the ground. The appellant had tied her mouth by Odhani and forcefully established physical relation with her and when the victim started crying, the appellant fled away from there.

5. This Court, after having considered the testimony of P.W.-1, is of the view that it is not a fit case where the sentenced is to be suspended.

6. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A. No. 4262 of 2023 stands rejected.

7. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not prejudice the case of the appellant on merit, since, the criminal appeal is lying pending before this Court for its consideration.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

Saurabh/-

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter