Debo Sundi vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 3540 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Debo Sundi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 March, 2025

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Gautam Kumar Choudhary

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 64 of 2025
                                   With
                            I.A. No. 13317 of 2024
                                   ---------

Debo Sundi, S/o Soma Sundi, R/o Village Roro, PO & PS Muffasil, Distt. West Singhbhum at Chaibasa ... ... Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent

---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

----------

For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mahatha, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. V.S. Sahay, A.P.P.

-----------

06 /Dated: 27 March, 2025 th

I.A. No. 13317 of 2024

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of appellant, under Section 430(1) of the BNSS, 2023 for suspension of sentence dated 09.10.2024 passed by learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-III, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in S.T. No. 185 of 2014 arising out of Muffasil P.S. Case No. 104 of 2011, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been found guilty for the offence under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life along with fine of Rs.25,000/- under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC.

2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the sole ground has been taken for suspension of sentence regarding the period of sentence having been undergone by the appellant, as he is languishing in jail custody since 07.04.2014.

3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has raised vehement opposition by showing the nature of crime committed by the appellant, which is a crime of commission of rape/sexual assault upon a female child, having the age in between three to four years. The commission of rape has been proved by the doctors in their testimonies.

4. 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 and exhibits as available in the Lower Court Records.

5. The period of sentence, said to be undergone by the appellant, can be taken as a ground for suspension of sentence, but there is no hard and fast rule for its consideration, rather the period of custody is also to be taken into consideration along with the culpability said to be committed and having been proved in course of trial. We are considering the nature of crime committed by the appellant, which is the sexual assault, committed upon a female child having the age of three to four years.

6. This Court, considering the aforesaid nature of crime, committed by the appellant, is of the view that solely on the ground of completion of sentence, the interlocutory application, praying for suspension of sentence, cannot be allowed.

7. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application (I.A. No. 13317 of 2024) deserves to be dismissed, as such, stands dismissed.

8. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not prejudice the appeal on merit, since, the criminal appeal is lying pending before this Court for its consideration.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT/Anit