Jharkhand High Court
Soyna Singh Munda vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opp. Party on 14 October, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No.260 of 2024
Soyna Singh Munda ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opp. Party
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. R.C.P. Sah, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, APP
------
7/14.10.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned
counsel appearing for the State.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this
Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred for setting aside the
Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23/01/2024
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge II, Seraikella in Cr.
Appeal No. 43/2015, who has been pleased to affirm the Judgment of
conviction dated 30/07/2015 and sentence dated 01/08/2015 passed by
learned Assistant Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella in Kuchai P.S. Case No.
09/2010 dated 17/04/2010 (G.R. Case No. 301/2010, Sessions Trial
No. 82/2010, whereby the petitioner was sentenced to undergo R.I. for
7 years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under section 376 of
Indian Penal Code and the petitioner was further directed to undergo
R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under section
417 of Indian Penal Code and he is also directed to pay a
compensation amount of Rs. 30,000/- to the victim. In default of
payment of fine and compensation amount, there shall be 6 months
additional R.I. imprisonment. All the sentences shall run concurrently
and the period undergone in custody by him during trail shall be set
off.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that I.A.
No.12127 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner for suspension of
sentence and the bail may kindly be granted to the petitioner. He
further submits that as per F.I.R. PW-3 has said that physical
relationship was done with her by the petitioner on the pretext of
marriage whereas, as per deposition of PW-1 in paragraph-2 of cross
examination has said that rape was committed forcefully in entering to
her house. He further submits that PW 3 victim in paragraph-3 of her
cross examination has stated that the relationship was with Gurwa five
years ago and she has not disclosed this fact to her parents meaning
thereby that rape was committed not by petitioner rather by Gurwa as
because in paragraph 2 of her cross-examination, she has very
specifically said that petitioner is her co-villager and who is known to
her. PW-1 in paragraph-6 of her cross-examination has said that
victim has told her that child was died by poisoning whereas PW-2 in
paragraph-1 of her Chief has said that child was died in suspicious
condition, whereas PW-3 in paragraph-1 has said that child was died
due to wrong medicine, whereas PW-4 father of victim has said in
paragraph-1 of his Chief that the child died due to non-maintenance,
whereas as per F.I.R., it has been stated that child died due to illness.
PW 3 (victim) in paragraph 4 of her cross examination has further
stated that physical relationship was established with her about 40 to
50 times and the allegation of relationship against the petitioner is
only once. Learned counsel further submits that what has happened
that is consensual in nature. He then submits that the petitioner may
kindly be released on bail.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and
submits that the allegation against the petitioner is serious in nature.
5. In view of the above and considering the statement of the
victim, who is PW-3 to the effect that the relationship was established
for 40 to 50 times by another person and the petitioner has established
relationship once, prima facie, it appears that the relationship was
established long back. Other contradictions have also been pointed out
by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as noted in the
argument, I am inclined to grant the petitioner to be released on bail,
on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty-Five
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction
of learned Assistant Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella, in connection with
Kuchai P.S. Case No.09 of 2010, G.R. Case No.301 of 2010, S.T.
No.82 of 2010, subject to payment of compensation amount of
Rs.30,000/- to the victim.
6. In view of the above, the I.A.No.12127 of 2025 is allowed and
disposed of.
7. Call for the trial court record.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
14.10.2025
R.Kumar
