Jharkhand High Court
Vinod Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand on 26 August, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1454 of 2024
----
Vinod Ram ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-------
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
------
For the Appellant : Md. Razaullah Ansari, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, APP
--------
th
Order No. 08 : Dated 26 August, 2025
I.A. No. 9022 of 2025
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed
under Section 430(1) of the BNSS, 2023 for suspension of
sentence dated 19.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional
Judicial Commissioner-VII, Ranchi in S.T. Case No. 183 of
2020 arising out of Airport P.S. Case No. 09 of 2020, whereby
and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the
offence under Section 376 IPC and has been convicted to
under Section 376 IPC for 10 years with fine for s. 10,000/-
for the offence under Section 376 IPC and in default of
payment of fine he was directed to undergo SI for 12 months.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it
is a case where the appellant has falsely been implicated in
this case. It has been submitted that the case has been
instituted on the pretext of solemnization of marriage and
when the marriage has allegedly been denied the present case
has been instituted.
3. It has further been submitted that doctor has not been
examined rather the witnesses who have been examined are
the interested witness. Even no sign of sexual assault has
been found.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant based upon the
aforesaid ground has submitted that it is a fit case for
suspension of sentence.
5. While on the other hand, Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan,
learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, appearing for the
respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer for
suspension of sentence.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has submitted
that earlier prayer for suspension of sentence was made by
filing I.A. No. 10882 of 2024 which was dismissed as
withdrawn vide order dated 17th March, 2025. Thereafter the
present application has been filed.
7. The victim has made allegation against the appellant
that the appellant committed rape upon her for which her
statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and she
has fully supported her version during examination and
cross-examination. Further, the other witnesses have also
supported the version of the prosecution.
8. Submission, therefore, has been made that since the
victim has all along supported the prosecution version, and
the nature of crime is heinous, as such the prayer for
suspension is not fit to be allowed.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone
through the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the
impugned judgment and the testimony of the witnesses.
10. This Court, after going through the testimonies of P.W.
5, has found that she has fully supported her case and other
witnesses have also supported the case of the prosecution.
We have also gone through the statement recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. and found therefrom that no such
defense has been taken that the appellant has falsely been
implicated in this case while on the pretext of marriage or
else while on the other hand, the PW 5 (victim) has fully
supported the prosecution case.
11. This Court, considering the aforesaid facts, is of the view
that the appellant has not been able to make out a case for
suspension of sentence and hence the instant Interlocutory
Application deserves to be dismissed
12. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application being
I.A. No. 9022 of 2025 stands dismissed.
13. It is made clear that any observation(s) made
hereinabove will not prejudice the case of the parties on merit
since the appeal is lying pending for its consideration.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Alankar/
