Jharkhand High Court
Kistu Marandi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 January, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1439 of 2024
Kistu Marandi, aged about 31 Years, S/o Late Parmeshwar Marandi, R/O
Village- Dumariya, P.O.& P.S.- Littipara, District- Pakur, Jharkhand
-- --- 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. Arun Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
Order No.05/ Dated 07th January 2025
I.A. No. 11265 of 2024
The instant interlocutory application has been filed under
Section 430(1) of the BNSS, 2023 for suspension of sentence of the
appellant in connection with the judgment of conviction dated
12.07.2024 and order of sentence dated 18.07.2024 passed in Sessions
Trial No. 79 of 2018 arising out of Littipara P.S. Case No. 40 of 2017
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pakur whereby and where
under, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable
under Sections 376 r/w 511 and 379 of the IPC and has been
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with a fine of Rs.50,000/- and a
default sentence of S.I. for 1 years under Section 376/511 of the IPC
and R.I. for 3 years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and a default sentence
of S.I. for 6 months under Section 379 IPC.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case
where none of the ingredients of Sections 376/511 and 379 of the IPC
is available but even then the appellant has been convicted under the
aforesaid penal offences.
3. It has been contended that there is vital improvement in the
prosecution version if the statement of the prosecutrix recorded in the
F.I.R is compared with her testimony as P.W.1, which was recorded
during course of trial.
4. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the P.W.1
has disclosed in the F.I.R that the appellant had fled away due to her
resistance when he was trying to snatch her ornaments i.e., nose pin,
ear ring, silver chain, silver anklet etc. However, in her testimony
recorded during trial, P.W.1 has stated that the appellant fled away
after the villagers came.
5. Further, ground has been made that Police on the same date
raided the house of the appellant for the purpose of search of the
belongings said to be snatched by the appellant, but they were not
found in the house of the appellant, and despite the absence of any
connecting evidence appellant has been convicted under Section 379
of the IPC.
6. Submission has also been made that if the instant case is based
upon two penal offences, first is under Section 376/511 of the IPC and
the second is under Section 379 of the IPC in the same transaction and
one of the penal offence i.e. Section 379 IPC in the absence of any
recovery, if the conviction has been made, then further prosecution
version regarding the commission of rape cannot be said to be
substantiated.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid
grounds has submitted that it is a fit case for suspension of sentence
since the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charge
beyond all reasonable doubts.
8. While on the other hand, learned P.P. has vehemently opposed
the prayer for bail.
9. It has been contended by the learned P.P. by referring to the
testimony of P.W.1 that not only P.W.1 has supported the prosecution
version but the other witnesses have also supported the prosecution
version.
10. Learned P.P., based upon the aforesaid ground has submitted
that it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence.
11. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone
2 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1439 of 2024
across the findings rendered by the learned Trial Court in the
impugned judgment as also testimonies of the witnesses and the
exhibits available in the L.C.R.
12. This Court, in order to appreciate the arguments advanced on
behalf of the parties has gone through the F.I.R. wherein according to
the prosecution version the victim who has been examined as P.W.1
has disclosed that on her resistance the appellant had fled away after
snatching her belongings i.e., ornaments of nose and ear made of gold
and chain and payal made of silver. She further stated in the F.I.R that
after the incident she came to her house and narrated the incident to
her mother and brother. But in her examination-in-chief in her
testimony during course of trial she has deposed that when she raised
alarm the villagers and her family members including her mother
came at the place of occurrence and the appellant fled away.
13. The conviction is also under Section 379 of the IPC and as
would appear from the materials available on record that on the same
day the house of the appellant was searched but no belongings of
P.W.1 said to be snatched by the appellant were found.
14. Argument has been advanced on behalf of the appellant that
since the snatching and attempt to commit rape is in the same
transaction and if one of the offences has not been proved due to non-
availability of the material evidence, then the other offence cannot be
said to be substantially proved.
15. We, on the basis of the materials available and the facts and
circumstances are of the view that the basis of the arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is having sufficient
force.
16. Considering the same, this Court is of the view that appellant
has been able to make out a prima facie case for grant of bail by
suspending his sentence.
17. Accordingly, the appellant, above named, is directed to be
released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees
3 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1439 of 2024
Twenty-Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to
the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pakur in
connection with Sessions Trial No. 79 of 2018 arising out of Littipara
P.S. Case No. 40 of 2017.
18. It is made clear that any observation made herein will not
prejudice the case of the parties on merit as the appeal is lying
pending for its consideration.
19. In view thereof I.A. No. 11265 of 2024 is allowed and
disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
A.Mohanty
4 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1439 of 2024
