Jharkhand High Court
Randhir Verma vs State Of Jharkhand on 22 January, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.1356 of 2024
-----
Randhir Verma, aged about 43 years, son of Late Naresh
Verma, resident of Madhukam, Mahuwa Toli, P.O. Hehal,
P.S. Sukhdeonagar, District Ranchi... ... Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-------
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
-------
For the Appellants : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Nishant Kumar Roy, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Advocate
------
nd
Order No. 03/Dated 22 January, 2025
I.A. No.417 of 2025
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed
under Section 430(1) of the BNSS for suspension of sentence
dated 30.09.2024 passed by learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner VII, Ranchi in connection with S.T. 600 of
2015 arising out of Kotwali (Sukhdeonagar) P.S. Case No.513
of 2015 whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been
convicted for the offence under Sections 376(2)(n) of the
Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in
default of payment of fine, further S.I. for 12 months.
2. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing
for the appellant, assisted by Mr. Nishant Kumar Roy, has
submitted that very falsity of the prosecution version so far as
conviction of the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian
Penal Code is evident on the face of the prosecution version
which is from the mouth of the victim that she, even after the
said illegal physical relationship, has solemnized marriage
with the appellant and, thereafter, the case has been
instituted under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and
even the litigation has been initiated by filing application
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by seeking maintenance from the
appellant.
3. The question, therefore, has been raised that once the
marriage has been solemnized and based upon that the
litigation for maintenance has been filed and even the
prosecution has been initiated under Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code on the behest of the present victim, then
where is the question to attract the ingredient of Section 376
of the Indian Penal Code but the learned trial court, without
taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter,
has convicted the appellant under Section 376(2)(n) of the
Indian Penal Code and, as such, it is a fit case for suspension
of sentence.
4. While on the other hand, Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for State and
Mr. Rahul Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the
informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for
suspension of sentence.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the informant,
particularly, has submitted that it is a case also of bigamy
and hence, the chargesheet has also been submitted under
Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. Learned counsel for the informant has further
submitted that it is incorrect on the part of the appellant to
take the ground that no ingredient of Section 376 I.P.C. is
being attracted, it is for the reason that the victim was
subjected to rape since very beginning and the same would be
evident from the version of the victim who has been examined
as PW-2.
7. Learned State counsel has also made opposition to
the prayer for suspension of sentence by taking the ground
that if the testimony of the entire witnesses will be taken into
consideration together coupled with the testimony of the
victim who has been examined as PW-2, it is not a fit case for
suspension of sentence.
8. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties,
gone across the finding recorded by the learned trial court in
the impugned judgment as also the testimony of witnesses
available in the lower court record and the exhibits available
therein.
9. This Court, in order to appreciate the argument
advanced on behalf of the parties, has gone through the
material available in the trial court record and found
therefrom that as per the testimony of the victim herself, she
has instituted a case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal
Code as also has filed a case before the concerned family
court for seeking maintenance by filing application under
Section 125 Cr.P.C.
10. It is also admitted that the marriage was solemnized
in between the victim and the appellant. But during the
course of said marriage, the appellant has solemnized second
marriage and hence, the case has also been instituted under
Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. But, there is acquittal
under Section 494 I.P.C. due to want of evidence in this
regard.
11. It is not the case of the victim that even though she
has solemnized marriage and contrary to her wish the
physical relationship was forcefully established so as to
attract the ingredient of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code,
rather, the case of the victim is that the physical relationship
was forcefully established, then the question arises that in a
case of subsisting marriage which is evident from the case
instituted under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code and the
litigation filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., how the ingredient
of Section 376 are attracted.
12. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact, is of the
view that the appellant has been able to make out a case for
suspension of sentence.
13. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application
being I.A. No. 417 of 2025 stands allowed.
14. 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.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner VII, Ranchi in connection with S.T. 600 of
2015 arising out of Kotwali (Sukhdeonagar) P.S. Case No.513
of 2015.
15. It is made clear that any observation made herein will
not prejudice the issue on merit as the appeal is lying
pending for its consideration.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Birendra/
