[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Bhartu Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 January, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 329 of 2023
With
I.A. No. 15954 of 2025
---------
Bhartu Yadav, aged about 25 years, son of Late Charka Mahto,
resident of Village-Birajpur, P.O. & P.S.-Sonaraithari, District-
Deoghar, Jharkhand.
... ... 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. Ankit Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, A.P.P.
-----------
th
05/Dated: 19 January, 2026
I.A. No. 15954 of 2025:
1. The instant Interlocutory Application has been filed under Section
430(1) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita seeking therein
suspension of sentence dated 23.01.2023 passed by the Court of
learned Special Judge POCSO, Deoghar, in POCSO Case No. 37 of
2020, arising out of Deoghar (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 4 of 2020,
whereby and where under the applicant has been held guilty for the
charge under Section 376 (1) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4
of the POCSO Act, and is sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) and in default of payment of fine the
applicant has been further sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment of six months for the charge under Section 4 of the
POCSO Act and the period of custody during investigation and trial
of this case is directed to be set off.
2. Mr. Ankit Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted
that the present interlocutory application has been filed for
suspension of sentence primarily on the ground of completion of half
of the sentence.
3. It has been contended that earlier, on merits, the prayer for
suspension of sentence has been rejected vide order dated 30.08.2023
passed in I.A. No. 6790 of 2023.
4. Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the
prayer for suspension of sentence and has submitted that merely on
the ground of completion of half of the sentence, the sentence cannot
be suspended taking into consideration the nature of crime
committed by the applicant which has conclusively been proved
having been dealt with by this Court while considering the prayer
made for suspension of sentence in I.A. No. 6790 of 2023.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through
the order of rejection passed by this Court vide order dated
30.08.2023 in I.A. No. 6790 of 2023. For ready reference, the said
order is being reproduced as under:
The instant Interlocutory Application has been filed under
Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking therein
suspension of sentence dated 23.01.2023 passed by the Court of
learned Special Judge POCSO, Deoghar, in POCSO Case No. 37
of 2020, arising out of Deoghar (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 4 of 2020,
whereby and where under the appellant has been held guilty for the
charge under Section 376 (1) of the Indian Penal Code and Section
4 of the POCSO Act, and is further sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) and in default of payment of fine the
appellant has been further sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment of six months for the charge under Section 4 of the
POCSO Act and the period of custody during investigation and
trial of this case is directed to be set off.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case
where the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charge
said to be beyond reasonable doubt. Such submission has been
made on the ground that there are contradictions in the testimony
of the prosecution witnesses.
3. It has further been argued by referring to the testimony of P.W.-
4, the victim, P.W.-1, the mother, and P.W.-2 the father, having
major contradictions and in view thereof the learned Trial Court
ought to have taken into consideration the aforesaid contradiction
before coming to the conclusive finding of proving the charges said
to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts.
4. Further submission has been made that even the doctor has not
corroborated the prosecution version as has been deposed by the
victim, P.W.-4. Learned counsel on the aforesaid premise has
submitted that it is a fit case where the sentence is to be suspended.
5. While on the other hand Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has
submitted by referring to the testimony of P.W. -4, the victim, who
has corroborated the prosecution version and remained consistent
as to what she had stated while recording her statement under
Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor based upon the aforesaid
submission has submitted that if the learned Trial Court by taking
the consideration the testimony of P.W.-4, who remained consistent
all along, if has convicted the appellant for the offence under
Section 4 of the POCSO Act and Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal
Code, the same cannot be said to suffer from any error and in that
view of the matter, it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the
finding recorded by the learned Trial Court in the impugned
judgement as also the documents available in the Lower Court
Records.
8. It is evident from the fact that the age of the victim has been
assessed to be of 14 years and there is no challenge with respect to
the age of the victim. The victim has deposed about the commission
of crime of rape upon her by the appellant. Her statement was
recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. as has been marked as
Exhibit-1, wherein the victim has disclosed the entire occurrence
and by corroborating her version as was recorded under Section
164 of the Cr.P.C. has deposed in the Court in support of the
prosecution version about the commission of crime of rape by the
appellant.
9. The doctor although has found no sign of rape, which is the
ground taken by the appellant by submitting that there is no
ingredient of Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code.
10. This Court is of the view that so far as the argument advanced
on behalf of the appellant that the doctor has not found any sign of
rape is concerned, is insignificant in view of the version of P.W.-4,
the P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, the mother and father, Furthermore, that
under the nature of the offence either under Section 376(1) of the
Indian Penal Code or under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, it is not
necessary to have a physical relationship so as to attract the
aforesaid provision.
11. Since the P.W.-4, victim, has corroborated the aforesaid
version coupled with its corroboration by P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, we
have not found any reason to suspend the sentence.
12. Accordingly, the aforesaid Interlocutory Application bearing
I.A. No. 6790 of 2023, stands rejected.
13. It is made clear that any observation made herein above will
not prejudice the case of the parties since the appeal is lying
pending for its consideration."
6. The present interlocutory application has been filed on the ground of
completion of half of the sentence. The question of consideration of
prayer for suspension of sentence on completion of half of the
sentence is not a rule rather it is by virtue of an observation so made
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for consideration of prayer for
suspension of sentence on completion of half of the sentence.
7. We are conscious with the settled position of law that the period of
custody cannot be the sole ground for suspension of sentence, rather,
the nature of crime as has been found to be proved against one or the
other, the applicant herein, is to be taken into consideration.
8. At this juncture it requires to refer herein that the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Hasmat, (2004) 6 SCC 175
has observed that the appellate court is duty-bound to objectively
assess the matter and to record reasons for the conclusion that the
case warrants suspension of execution of sentence and grant of bail,
and the order directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail
should not be passed as a matter of routine, for ready reference, the
relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted
herein:-
"6. Section 389 of the Code deals with suspension of execution of
sentence pending the appeal and release of the appellant on bail.
There is a distinction between bail and suspension of sentence. One
of the essential ingredients of Section 389 is the requirement for the
appellate court to record reasons in writing for ordering suspension
of execution of the sentence or order appealed. If he is in
confinement, the said court can direct that he be released on bail or
on his own bond. The requirement of recording reasons in writing
clearly indicates that there has to be careful consideration of the
relevant aspects and the order directing suspension of sentence and
grant of bail should not be passed as a matter of routine.
7. The appellate court is duty-bound to objectively assess the matter
and to record reasons for the conclusion that the case warrants
suspension of execution of sentence and grant of bail. In the instant
case, the only factor which seems to have weighed with the High
Court for directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail is the
absence of allegation of misuse of liberty during the period the
accused-respondent was granted parole."
9. It is settled connotation of law that even if the convict has completed
substantive sentence, that cannot be a sole ground for suspension of
sentence if the nature of offence having been proved in course of
trial is serious.
10. Recently the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chhotelal Yadav
versus state of Jharkhand & Anr. [CRIMINAL APPEAL
NO.4804/2025 @ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.15688/2025] has
observed that even in cases where the sentence is for a fixed term,
there is a caveat that if there are exceptional circumstances, then the
Court may decline to suspend the sentence and what could be those
exceptional circumstances is not something exhaustive. It is for the
Court concerned to look into those exceptional circumstances as may
be pointed out by the State.
11. This Court has considered the argument advanced on behalf of the
applicant for suspension of sentence primarily on the ground of
completion of half of sentence but this Court is of the view that
merely on the ground of completion of half of the sentence, the
present interlocutory application cannot be allowed due to the reason
that the prosecution has conclusively proved the culpability
committed on behalf of the applicant as would be evident from the
testimony of P.W.-4, the victim, P.W.-1, the mother and P.W.-2, the
father of the victim.
12. It is a case where the P.W.-4, the victim, who on the date of
commission of crime, was minor having the age of 14 years was
subjected to sexual assault and as such, the applicant has been
convicted under Section 4 of POCSO Act and under Section 376 of
IPC.
13. The version of the P.W.-4 which has been disclosed at the time of
recording of the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has
conclusively been substantiated by the victim even in the testimony
in course of trial.
14. This Court is of the view that merely on the basis of completion of
half of the sentence, in a nature of a case which is available herein, if
the applicant will be released, then, it will lead to miscarriage of
justice and will accelerate the commission of offence which will be
contrary to the spirit of the POCSO Act.
15. This Court, therefore, is of the view that it is not a case where merely
on the ground of completion of half of the sentence, the present
interlocutory application is to be allowed.
16. Accordingly, the present interlocutory application stands dismissed,
as such, disposed of.
17. It is made clear that any observation made herein above will not
prejudice the case of the parties since the appeal is lying pending for
its consideration.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
19th January, 2026
Saurabh/-
N.A.F.R.
Uploaded on: 21.01.2026
