Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ
Mahadev Oraon Son Of Chapa Oraon – Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
I.A.(Cr.) No.2176 of 2025
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of appellant no.3, namely, Bage Oraon under Section 430(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 for suspension of sentence dated 03.07.2018 passed by the learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner-III-cum-F.T.C. (CAW) Ranchi, in connection with Session Trial No.24 of 2017, arising out of Lapung P.S. Case No.31 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No.5481 of 2016, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted under Sections 147, 323, 302/149 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Witch Practices Act , 2001 and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and has further been sentenced for the offences as aforesaid.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that although, the prayer for suspension of sentence of the present appellant has been rejected by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.07.2019 but subsequent thereto, the other appellants, namely, Mahadev Oraon, Bandhan Oraon @ Bandhan
The court allowed the suspension of sentence for the appellant based on the identical circumstances of co-accused who were granted bail, affirming that significant time served in custody justified th....
The court established that co-convicts granted bail on similar grounds justified the suspension of the appellant's sentence, ensuring equitable treatment under law.
Suspension of sentence granted where injuries classified as simple and lack of intent to kill evidenced by trial court findings.
The court upheld the conviction for gang rape based on credible victim testimony, ruling that contradictions and co-accused acquittals do not automatically justify sentence suspension.
The court ruled that the appellants demonstrated insufficient overt acts contributing to the crime, allowing for bail pending appeal.
The court upheld the conviction under Section 304(B) IPC, emphasizing that the absence of new grounds and insufficient custody period do not justify suspension of sentence.
The court allows bail pending appeal based on parity with co-accused and the applicant's lengthy custody exceeding ten years.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
