Jharkhand High Court
Mukesh Kumar Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 January, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1509 of 2024
----
Mukesh Kumar Mahto ... ... 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. Ajit Prasad, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, APP
--------
rd
Order No. 05 : Dated 23 January, 2025
I.A. No. 385 of 2025
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed
on behalf of sole appellant under Section 430 (1) of BNSS,
2023 for suspension of sentence dated 27.09.2024 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, FTC (CAW),
Bermo at Tenughat in Sessions Trial No. 467 of 2022
arising out of Chandrapura P.S. Case No. 75 of 2022,
whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been found
convicted under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code
and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.
10,000 and in default of payment of fine he was further
directed to undergo RI for six months.
2. It has been contended on behalf of appellant that the
appellant has falsely been implicated even though there is
no ingredient of Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal
Code. It has further been submitted that since the
marriage has not been solemnized, therefore, the present
case has been instituted, which itself speaks that the
prosecution version attracting Section 376 (2)(n) is not
available.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the
aforesaid ground, has submitted that the sentence is fit to
be kept in abeyance by allowing the instant Interlocutory
Application.
4. While on the other hand, learned APP appearing for
the State has opposed the prayer for suspension of
sentence. It has been contended by referring to the
testimony of P.W. 1, who according to learned counsel has
consistently supported the prosecution version. It has also
been submitted that the first instance of establishing the
physical relationship by the appellant with the victim by
committing rape and thereafter the victim compromised
on the pretext of assurance of marriage given by the
appellant. Hence, it is incorrect on the part of the
appellant to take the ground that it is not a case where
Section 376(2)(n) is not attracted and as such submission
has been made that it is not a fit case for suspension of
sentence.
5. We have heard 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 the
witnesses as available in the Lower Court Records.
6. This Court in order to appreciate the argument
advanced on behalf of parties has considered the
testimony of P.W. 1, the victim, wherefrom it is evident
that she herself has admitted that since marriage has not
been solemnized by the appellant, therefore, the present
case has been instituted. The aforesaid version of the
victim does clarify that the victim was also the consenting
party in establishing the physical relationship.
7. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact, is of the
view that it is case where the appellant has made out a
case for suspension of sentence.
8. Therefore, this Court is of the view, 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 Additional Sessions Judge-II, FTC (CAW), Bermo
at Tenughat in Sessions Trial No. 467 of 2022 arising out
of Chandrapura P.S. Case No. 75 of 2022.
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.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Alankar/
