Jharkhand High Court
Ghasia Hembrom @ Ghasiya Hembram vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 October, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.467 of 2024
-----
Ghasia Hembrom @ Ghasiya Hembram, aged about 28
years, son of Mohan Hembrom, resident of Village Rola,
Post Rola, Police Station Rajnagar, District Seraikella
Kharsawan. ... ... 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. Vikash Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, A.P.P.
------
rd
Order No. 07/Dated 23 October, 2024
I.A. No.3864 of 2024
1. This interlocutory application has been filed under
Section 389(1) of the Cr. P.C for suspension of sentence in
connection with order of sentence dated 13.12.2023 passed
by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-II,
Seraikella in connection with Sessions Trial No.77 of 2020
arising out of Seraikella P.S. Case No.40 of 2020
corresponding to G.R. Case No.307 of 2020 by which the
appellant has been convicted under Section 376, 379 and
411 of the I.P.C. and directed to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- under
Section 376 and R.I. for three years for the offence under
Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant
that it is a case where no ingredient of Section 376 I.P.C. is
attracted reason being that as per the testimony of the
victim, the appellant and the victim were on talking terms
which itself suggests that the physical relationship which
has been said to be established, was with the consent of the
victim and, therefore, there is no ingredient of Section 376
I.P.C.
3. It has further been contended that the victim has
not disclosed the name of the appellant either in the
statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. or even in
her deposition which also suggests that both had
established physical relationship with consent.
4. The learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid
grounds, has submitted that it is a fit case where the
sentence is to be suspended.
5. While on the other hand, Mr. Anup Pawan Topno,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
6. He has referred the deposition of the victim-PW-3,
who has identified the appellant at the time of T.I.P. in the
Sub-Divisional Jail, Seraikella.
7. It has further been submitted that PW-3 has fully
supported the prosecution version and she remained intact
in the cross-examination.
8. The PW-6, the learned S.D.J.M, Seraikella before
whom the victim had identified the appellant, has also
supported the version of the victim.
9. The learned A.P.P., based upon the aforesaid
grounds, has submitted that it is not a case where the
sentence is to be suspended taking into consideration the
nature of crime committed by the appellant.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone
across the finding recorded by the learned court in the
impugned judgment as also the testimony of the witnesses
along with the exhibits as available in the Lower Court
Records.
11. This Court, in order to appreciate the argument
advanced on behalf of the parties, has gone through the
testimony of the victim-PW-3 who has fully supported the
prosecution version.
12. It is further evident from her testimony that she has
identified the appellant at the time of T.I.P. in the Sub-
Divisional Jail, Seraikella. The said identification was in
presence of PW-6, learned S.D.J.M., Seraikella who has
also corroborated the version of the PW-3 with respect to
identification of the appellant who has raped upon her.
13. The Doctor has also supported the prosecution
version while giving opinion that there is sign of forceful
penetration.
14. This Court, considering the aforesaid, is of the view
that it is not a case where the appellant has been able to
make out prima facie case for suspension of sentence.
15. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the appellant is
rejected.
16. The instant interlocutory application, I.A. 3864 of
2024, is accordingly, dismissed.
17. However, 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.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Birendra/
