Jharkhand High Court
Dutu Munda Aged About 25 Years 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. A (D.B) No. 553 of 2024
With
I.A. No.1830 of 2025
---------
Dutu Munda aged about 25 years, son of Late Sham Munda, resident of
village- Gomiadih Tola, P.O.-Buribura, P.S.- Kuchai, Dist.- Kharsawan
(Jharkhand) ... ... 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. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Tiwari, Spl.P.P.
-----------
07/Dated: 27.02.2025
I.A. No. 1830 of 2025
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of
appellant for suspension sentence dated 05.03.2024 respectively
passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-II,
Seraikella in Kuchai P.S. Case No. 09 of 2018 corresponding to S.T.
No.130 of 2021, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been
found guilty and convicted under Section 323, 376D/34 of Indian
Penal Code and accordingly sentenced to undergo RI for 20 years
with fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence under section 376D of I.P.C.
and in default of payment of fine has been directed to undergo SI for
one year and also sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year for the offence
under section 323 of IPC. All the sentences have been directed to run
concurrently.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where
the prosecution has miserably failed in substantiating the charges
beyond all reasonable doubts reason being that from perusal of the
testimony of P.W. 6 (victim), what she has deposed in her
examination-in-chief with respect to the commission of crime of rape
by the appellant has not been supported in her cross-examination.
Learned counsel, therefore, has submitted that the testimony of P.W.6
(victim), so far as the culpability said to be committed by the present
appellant is concerned, cannot be said to be trustworthy, while the
judgment of conviction of the present appellant is primarily based
upon the testimony of P.W.6.
3. It has further been contended that the doubt is also there in view of
the fact that it is an admitted case of the prosecution that the victim
was accompanied by her brother-in-law and when three persons
including the present appellant had caught hold of the victim on 11th
March, 2018, but the brother-in-law, who has been examined as
P.W.1, has not disclosed the said occurrence to anybody and even not
reported to the police with respect to overpowering the victim by the
three persons including the present appellant. Therefore, the present
case is filed only to falsely implicate the present appellant and hence,
it is a fit case for suspension of sentence.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Shailesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel
appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for
suspension of sentence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
findings recorded by learned trial court in the impugned judgment as
also the testimony of the witnesses as available in the Lower Court
Records particularly the testimony of P.W. 6 and P.W.1.
6. We, after going through the testimony of P.W.6 (victim), have found
that although she has supported the prosecution version regarding the
culpability said to be committed by the present appellant, so far as the
statement recorded in the examination-in-chief, but in her cross-
examination she has deposed in Para 7 that she was knowing the
present appellant and co-accused Sarful Munda prior to the said
occurrence. We have also seen para 15 of her testimony wherein she
has deposed that only Chole Munda, co-convict has committed rape
upon her.
7. We have also considered the testimony of P.W.1 and found that no
assertion has been given by him that what steps he has taken after the
incident for the victim, who was accompanied him. There is no
reference in the entire testimony that any information to the police
has been given immediately after the P.W.1 said to flee away from
the place of occurrence.
8. This court, considering the inconsistencies in the testimony of P.W.6,
so far as the commission of crime said to be committed by the present
appellant, is of the view that the sentence is to be suspended, during
pendency of the appeal.
9. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application is allowed.
10.In view thereof, the appellant, named above, is directed to be released
on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand
only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-II, Seraikella in Kuchai
P.S. Case No. 09 of 2018 corresponding to S.T. No.130 of 2021.
11.It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not
prejudice the case of the parties on merit since the appeal is lying
pending for its consideration.
12. 88.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Pappu-Amar/-
