Jharkhand High Court
Kishore Bara vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 January, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1441 of 2024
With
I.A. No. 11881 of 2024
---------
Kishore Bara, aged about 42 years, son of Late Markus Bara,
resident of Village Diptitoli, P.O. & P.S. Simdega, District
Simdega, Jharhkand.
... ... 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. Prabhat Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, A.P.P.
-----------
th
03/Dated: 09 January, 2025
I.A. No. 11881 of 2024:
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under
Section 430 (1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 on behalf of appellant, for suspension of sentence in
connection with judgement of conviction and order of
sentence dated 31.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (POCSO Act), Simdega
passed in Special POCSO Case No. 13 of 2020 arising out of
Simdega P.S. Case No. 61 of 2020 corresponding to G.R.
Case No. 289 of 2020, whereby and whereunder, the appellant
has been convicted under Sections 376(3) and 506 of IPC and
under Sections 4, 6 & 8 of POCSO Act and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under
Section 376(3) of IPC along with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and
rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence under
Section 506 of IPC along with fine of Rs.10,000/-.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the learned counsel for the
appellant that it is a case where the prosecution has miserably
failed to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt reason
being that the conviction is based merely on the testimony of
the victim, P.W.-1.
3. Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for suspension of sentence.
4. It has been contended that the testimony of P.W.-1, the victim,
who happens to be of 13 years of age is very much substantial
evidence in support of the prosecution wherein she has fully
supported the prosecution version.
5. It has also come in the testimony as also in the testimony of
the doctor that the victim became pregnant and also delivered
a child.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has further submitted
that the P.W.-1 has supported the prosecution version even in
the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, based upon the
aforesaid ground, has submitted that it is not a fit case for
suspension of sentence.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone across
the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned
judgment.
9. This Court in order to appreciate the argument advanced on
behalf of the parties has gone through the testimony of the
P.W.-1 who happens to be of 13 years of age and the age of
the victim has not been disputed by the appellant.
10. It is evident from the testimony of the P.W.-1, the victim, that
she has fully supported the prosecution version. It has also
come that on the day when she had given her deposition, she
had already given birth to a child.
11. The prosecution version has also been supported by the P.W.-
1 in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
12. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact, is of the view that
the present interlocutory application is not fit to be allowed.
13. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A.
No. 11881 of 2024 stands dismissed.
14. 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.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Saurabh/-
