Jharkhand High Court
Birendra Gope @ Bilendra Gope vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 February, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 94 of 2025
---------
Birendra Gope @ Bilendra Gope, aged about 24 years Son of Late
Manu Gope, Resident of village- Tundtoli Marda, P.O & P.S Palkot,
District Gumla ... 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 : Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, APP
-----------
06/Dated: 27 February, 2025
th
I.A. No. 13852 of 2024:
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section
430(1) of the BNSS, 2023 for keeping the sentence in abeyance in
connection with the judgment of conviction dated 18.07.2024 and
order of sentence dated 19.07.2024 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge- I cum Spl. Judge, Gumla in connection
with Sessions Trial No. 8/2021 arising out of Palkot P.S. Case No.
41/2020, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been
convicted under Section 376(2)(n) and Section 506 of the Indian
Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10
years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for two years respectively.
2. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant that it is a case where even on consideration of the
testimony of PW-8 (the victim), the testimony cannot be said to be
trustworthy, reason being that she herself has admitted that she was
subjected to rape time and again while living in the house of one co-
accused namely Poko Devi, who subsequently has been acquitted,
but while living in the house of Poko Devi, she had not made any
complaint against the appellant that she has been subjected to rape.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has further submitted
that the said conduct of the victim has itself suggests that it is a case
of false implication of the present appellant.
4. While, on the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, has
vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence.
5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone
across the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the
impugned judgment as also the testimony of PW-8, the victim.
6. It is a admitted case of the prosecution that the victim was living in
the house of one co-accused Poko Devi, who was acquitted.
7. The present appellant is the nephew of the said Poko Devi. The
victim herself has deposed that she had gone to the house of Poko
Devi and remain there for about a month where she was subjected to
rape by the appellant but even after commission of rape, she
remained in the house of the Poko Devi and had not made any
complaint regarding the same even to the parents.
8. As such, this Court is of the view that the applicant has been able to
make out a case for suspension of sentence.
9. Accordingly, I.A. No. 13852 of 2024 stands allowed.
10. In consequence thereof, the appellant, named above, is directed to be
released on bail, during pendency of the appeal, on furnishing bail
bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge- I cum Spl. Judge, Gumla in connection
with Sessions Trial No. 8/2021 arising out of Palkot P.S. Case No.
41/2020.
11. 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.
12. In view thereof, I.A. No. 13852 of 2024 stands disposed of with the
aforesaid observation and direction.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Samarth
