Jharkhand High Court
Chandan Saw vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 February, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B) No.1188 of 2024
....
Chandan Saw, aged about 29 years, son of Krishna Saw, resident of Village
Nawadih, P.O. Nawadih, P.S. Pathalgara, District Chatra (Jharkhand)
.... Appellant
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
.....
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P.
.....
Order No: 04/Dated: 04.02.2025
I.A. No. 993 of 2025
1. This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 430 (1) of
B.N.S.S, 2023 for suspension of sentence dated 21.08.2024 passed by the
learned A.J.C-XX, Ranchi in Sessions Trial Case No.201 of 2021 arising out
of Mahila P.S. Case No. 54 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case
No. 1695 of 2021, by which the appellant has been sentenced and directed to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- for the
offence under Section 376 (2)(n) of the I.P.C and in default of payment of fine,
further S.I. for six (06) months.
2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant that it is the case where no ingredient of Section 375 of the Indian
Penal Code is made out and the aforesaid aspect has also been substantiated
by the testimony of the victim who has been examined as PW 1.
3. As has been deposed by the PW-1 herself that the FIR has been instituted
after a lapse of four years, therefore, it is a fit case for suspension of sentence
during the pendency of appeal.
4. While on the other hand, Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer
for suspension of sentence.
5. It has been contended that the PW-1 victim has fully supported the
prosecution version and since the judgment of conviction has been passed and
as such it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence during pendency of the
instant appeal.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding
recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment as also the
testimony available in the L.C.R. and other documents available on record.
7. This Court, in order to appreciate the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties, has gone through the testimony of PW 1 and found
there from that she had established physical relationship for four years on the
pretext of marriage.
8. Therefore, based upon the testimony of PW1, this Court is of the view that
the appellant is able to make a case fit for suspension of sentence, during
pendency of appeal.
9. Accordingly, the prayer for suspension of sentence of the appellant is
allowed.
10. Accordingly, I.A. No. 993 of 2025, is hereby allowed.
11. In consequence thereof, the appellant, above named, is directed to be
released on bail during pendency of the instant appeal on furnishing bail bond
of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) only with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of leaned A.J.C.-XX, Ranchi in Sessions
Trial Case No.201 of 2021 arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 54 of 2020
corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1695 of 2021.
12. However, it is made clear that any observation made herein above will not
prejudice the case on merit as the appeal is lying pending for its consideration.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Avinash/Nishant
