Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, JJ.
Sudhir Bhuyian @ Sudhir Mandal @ Thathera, S/o Shree Shivbhajan Bhuyian @ Shivbhajan Mandal - Appellant
Vs.
The State Of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 42 of 2025
Decided On : 27-02-2025
(A) Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 430(1) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 376 - Interlocutory application for suspension of sentence - Conviction for life imprisonment for murder and 10 years for rape upheld based on compelling evidence including witness testimony and DNA analysis - Prosecution's reliance on last seen theory was insufficient to warrant suspension. (Paras 1-9)
(B) Criminal Procedure - The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt - The absence of eyewitness testimony does not negate the validity of circumstantial evidence when corroborated effectively. (Paras 2-3)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and 10 years for rape, with arguments presented for the suspension of the sentence due to alleged contradictions in witness testimony.
Findings of Court:
The court found sufficient evidence, including witness accounts and DNA evidence, to uphold the conviction and deny the suspension of the sentence.
Issues: The court addressed whether the absence of eyewitnesses and contradictions in testimony justified the suspension of the sentence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the evidence presented was compelling enough to affirm the conviction and that the case did not merit the suspension of the sentence.
Result: Interlocutory application rejected.
JUDGMENT :
I.A. No. 1205 of 2025
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 430(1) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for keeping the sentence in abeyance in connection with order of sentence dated 29th February, 2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Chatra (Jharkhand) in Sessions Trial Case No. 90 of 2020 arising out of Hunterganj P.S. Case No. 156 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. No. 37 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, the appellant have been convicted and sentenced with Rigorous Imprisonment for life for the offence Under Section 302 of the IPC with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and also sentenced to under Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC.
2. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where the prosecution has miserable failed with all reasonable doubt reason being that there is wide contradiction in the testimony of the witnesses.
3. It has further been contended that even there is no eye witness to the commission of the offence but rather the prosecution story is based upon the theory of last seen, therefore, it is a fit case for the suspension of sentence while the appeal is pending.
4. While, on the other hand, Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence.
5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone across the finding recorded by the learned trial Court, testimony available in the Lower Court Records and the other material exhibits particularly the FSL Report.
6. We, on consideration of the testimony of PW 2 and PW 3 who has deposed that the victim is being carried by the appellant.
7. The fact about the factum of commission of rape is also being proved by the DNA profile test which has been marked as Exhibit 3 wherein the sample of the semen that has been found in the petticoat of the victim is found to be of the present appellant.
8. This Court, therefore, is of the view that it is not a fit case where the sentence is to be suspended.
9. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A. No. 1205 of 2025 is hereby, rejected.
The court affirmed that compelling evidence, including witness testimony and DNA analysis, justified the conviction and denied the suspension of the sentence.
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 consistent testimony of a victim can uphold a conviction under the POCSO Act, regardless of the absence of physical evidence of assault.
Suspension of sentence is justified when the appeal process is delayed significantly and key witness credibility is in question.
Inconsistencies in witness testimony can create reasonable doubt, leading to suspension of sentence pending appeal.
In cases involving sexual assault of minors, the consistent testimony of the victim, corroborated by medical evidence, is sufficient for conviction, and such conviction justifies denial of suspension....
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 ruled that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case for suspension of sentence, as the victim's testimony was corroborated by medical evidence.
The victim's failure to report alleged rapes while living with a co-accused undermines her credibility, warranting suspension of the appellant's sentence pending appeal.
Suspension of sentence can only be granted in exceptional cases for serious offences, requiring substantial justification, as established by the appellate court.
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
