Jharkhand High Court
Ramesh Oraon vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 October, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 565 of 2024
---------
Ramesh Oraon, aged about 26 Years, S/O Babulal Oraon, R/O Village-
Temki, P.O. Temki, P.S. Latehar, District- Latehar.
... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
----------
For the Appellant : Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, APP
-----------
12/Dated: 14th October, 2025
I.A. No. 5982 of 2025:
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section
430(1) of the BNSS, 2023 for keeping the sentence in abeyance in
connection with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 12.10.2023 and 19.10.2023, respectively passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-II at Latehar in connection with
Sessions Trial No. 76 of 2021 arising out of Latehar P.S. Case No. 32
of 2021, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted
under Sections 376(1), 354, 506 of IPC read with Section 66(E),
67(A) of Information Technology Act and sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for fifteen years and fine of Rs. 20,000/- for offence
u/s 376(1) of the IPC and in default of payment of fine, he shall
further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Further
sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.
10,000/- for offence u/s 354 of the IPC and in default of payment of
fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
Further sentenced to two years of Rigorous Imprisonment for
offence u/s 506 of the IPC. Further sentenced to Simple
Imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- for offence u/s
66-E of the Information Technology Act and in default of payment of
fine he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for three months
and also sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and
fine of Rs. 10,000/- for offence u/s 67-A of the Information
Technology Act and in default of payment of fine he shall further
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. All the sentences
shall run concurrently.
2. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the
applicant/appellant that it is a case where no ingredient of offence,
as said to be committed under Section 376, is attracted, reason being
that the victim was major on the date of the said offence. The
exhibited photographs reflect that the physical relationship was
established with the consent of each other.
3. Further, it has been contended that even accepting the prosecution
version that the issue of making photograph viral to be correct, then
also the maximum punishment under the provision of IT Act, 2002 is
3 years and the appellant has already undergone the sentence for
approximately 4 years and 6 months.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, based upon the
aforesaid, has submitted that therefore it is a fit case where the
sentence is to be suspended during the pendency of the appeal.
5. While, on the other hand, Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for suspension of sentence.
6. It has been contended that on earlier occasion, the prayer so made
for suspension of sentence, has not been pressed as would be
evident from the order dated 27.01.2025.
7. It has been contended that prosecution has been able to be
substantiate the charges, based upon which the judgment of
conviction has been passed therefore, it is not a fit case for
suspension of sentence.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through
the finding recorded by the learned trial court as available in the
impugned judgment as also the material available in Trial Court
Record, particularly the testimony of the witnesses and the
photograph which has been marked as Ext. 4, based upon which the
allegation of making the photograph viral is one of the case of the
prosecution.
9. It is evident from the bare perusal of the photograph that the
physical relationship established as per the prosecution version
appears to be consensual.
10. This Court, taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, is of the view
that it is a fit case for suspension of sentence during the pendency of
the appeal.
11. Accordingly, I.A. No. 5982 of 2025 stands allowed.
12. In consequence thereof, the appellant, named above, is directed to be
released on bail, during pendency of the appeal, on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-II at Latehar in connection with Sessions
Trial No. 76 of 2021 arising out of Latehar P.S. Case No. 32 of 2021.
13. 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.
14. In view thereof, I.A. No. 5982 of 2025 stands disposed of with the
aforesaid observation and direction.
15. Let the original record be sent back to the concerned court keeping
the xerox copy of the same.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
14th October, 2025
Samarth
Uploaded on 15.10.2025
