Jharkhand High Court
Sarful Munda @ Soyna Munda vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 June, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 466 of 2024
With
I.A. No. 4059 of 2025
---------
Sarful Munda @ Soyna Munda, aged about 24 years, son of Doma
Munda, resident of Village Gomiadih Tola, Buribura, P.O. and P.S.
Kuchai, District-Seraikella Kharsawan.
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
----------
For the Appellant : Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, Advocate
Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Shailendra Kr, Tiwari, Spl. P.P.
-----------
th
08/Dated: 11 June, 2025
I.A. No. 4059 of 2025:
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section
430 (1) of the B.N.S.S. for suspension of sentence in connection with
the Judgment of conviction dated 28.02.2024 and order of sentence
dated 05.03.2024 passed by the learned District and Additional
Sessions Judge-II, Seraikella in S.T. Case No. 165 of 2018, arising
out of Kuchai P.S. Case No. 09 of 2018, whereby and whereunder
the appellant has been convicted under Sections 323 and 376-D of
IPC and directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years
along with fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence under Section 376-D
of IPC and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo
simple imprisonment for one year, the appellant has further been
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the
offence under Section 323 of IPC.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that earlier to the
present interlocutory application, another interlocutory application
being I.A. No. 9081 of 2024 was filed for suspension of sentence but
the same was withdrawn after some argument.
3. The present interlocutory application has been filed renewing the
prayer for suspension of sentence on the ground that the identically
placed co-convict, namely, Dutu Munda has been directed to be
released on bail by suspending the sentence vide order dated
27.02.2025 passed in I.A. No. 1830 of 2025 [Cr. Appeal (DB) No.
553 of 2024].
4. It has been contended by the appellant that in the said order dated
27.02.2025 sentence as inflicted upon the co-convict has been
suspended by taking into consideration the testimony of the victim
who has disclosed the name of Chole Munda who, as per the victim,
has committed rape upon her.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, has submitted that the
case of the present appellant/applicant is identically placed to that of
the case of Dutu Munda, as such, the present interlocutory
application may be allowed.
6. While on the other hand, Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State although has
made opposition so far as the culpability said to be committed by the
present appellant is concerned but he is fair enough to admit the fact
that the case of the present appellant is identical to that of the case of
co-convict, namely, Dutu Munda.
7. This Court, after having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
has taken into consideration of the fact that the co-convict, namely,
Dutu Munda has been directed to be released on bail after suspension
of sentence on consideration of the testimony of the victim who has
been examined as P.W.-6 in the Sessions Trial No. 130 of 2021
[subject matter of Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 553 of 2024] and as P.W.-1
in the present case who has disclosed the name of Chole Munda.
8. This Court, taking into consideration that the case of the present
appellant is identically placed to that of the case of Dutu Munda, is
of the view that the present interlocutory application is to be allowed.
9. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application stands allowed.
10. In consequence 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 and Additional Sessions Judge-II,
Seraikella in connection with S.T. Case No. 165 of 2018.
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.)
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Saurabh/-
