Jharkhand High Court
Md. Muzaffar Ansari @ Gobardhan Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 October, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Subhash Chand
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.330 of 2023
-----
Md. Muzaffar Ansari @ Gobardhan Ansari, aged about 32 years, son of
Sajruddin Ansari, r/o village-Murgabani, PO-Chatra, PS-Poraiyahat,
District-Godda ... 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. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Manoj Kr. Sah, Advocate
For the Respondent :Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, APP
------
th
Order No.04/Dated:24 October, 2024
I.A. No. 8999 of 2023
1. This is second attempt by the applicant for suspension of sentence.
2. Earlier vide order dated 16.03.2023, while admitting the present
criminal appeal, the prayer for suspension of the sentence of the
appellant being I.A No.2467 of 2023 has been rejected by this Court.
Thereafter, by way of present interlocutory application being I.A
No.8999 of 2023, the applicant has again made a prayer for suspension
of sentence.
3. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section
389(1) of the Cr.PC for keeping the sentence in abeyance in connection
with the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 14.02.2023 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Godda in connection with
Sessions Trial Case No.63 of 2012 arising out of Poraiyahat PS Case
No.198 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1416 of 2011 whereby
and whereunder, the applicant has been convicted and sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs.50,000/- under
Sections 376(1) of the IPC and in default of payment, further directed to
undergo RI for one year.
4. Mr. R.S Mazumdar, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Manoj
Kumar Sah, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant has
submitted by referring to testimony of PW3, the victim, that even if the
same will be considered, no offence said to have been committed by the
applicant under section 376 of the I.P.C. The testimony of the doctor, i.e,
PW6 has also been emphasized where the doctor has not found any sign
of rape in the medical examination.
5. It has further been submitted that whatever the version has been
deposed by the PW3 even if she was subjected to be rape, i.e., on the
dictate of her father and thereby also no offence is being made out under
section 376 of the I.P.C
6. The learned senior counsel for the applicant, based upon the aforesaid
grounds, has submitted that it is a fit case where the present applicant be
released from judicial custody by suspending his sentence.
7. While, on the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned APP
appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has vehemently opposed
the prayer for suspension of sentence.
8. It has been contended that earlier vide order dated 16.03.2023, the
prayer for suspension of sentence of the applicant has already been dealt
with by this Court which has been rejected by a detailed order on the
basis of the testimony of the victim, i.e., PW3. A submission has been
made that since a thoughtful consideration has already been given by
taking in to consideration the testimony of PW3 and, as such, there is no
occasion to again take the same ground by filing another interlocutory
application.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the
findings recorded by the learned trial Court as also the testimony of the
witnesses as available in the lower Court records which contains the
exhibits, particularly, the statement of PW3, the victim.
10. We have already considered the issue of suspension of sentence of the
applicant vide order dated 16.03.2023 passed in I.A No.2467 of 2023
which was dismissed by holding that this Court has not found any prima-
facie case for suspension of sentence of the applicant.
11. The present interlocutory application being I.A No.8999 of 2023 has
been filed again by emphasizing upon the testimony of PW3, the victim,
in order to make out a new ground that no offence under section 376 of
the I.P.C is said to be committed.
12. This Court has already dealt with the testimony of PW3, the victim,
in its earlier order dated 16.03.2023 passed in I.A No.2467 of 2023 and
again by filing the present interlocutory application, the applicant has not
come out with any fresh ground, as such, this Court is of the view that
there is no question of again review its thought which has already taken
by this Court earlier.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court, is of the view that the
applicant has failed to make out any new ground for suspension of
sentence.
14. Accordingly, I.A. No. 8999 of 2023 stands rejected.
15. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not
prejudice the case on merit, since, the criminal appeal is lying pending
before this Court for its consideration.
16. In view thereof, I.A. No. 8999 of 2023 stands disposed of with the
aforesaid observation and direction.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Subhash Chand, J.)
Sudhir
