Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J., SANJAY PRASAD, J.
Fantar Kharwar @ Hantar Kharwar S/o Jagdish Kharwar – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
I.A. No. 13363 of 2024
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 430 (1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for suspension of sentence dated 18.07.2024 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Palamau, in connection with Session Trial No. 105C/2015, arising out of Chainpur P.S. Case No.102 of 2009, corresponding to G.R. Case No.901 of 2009, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 , 149, 376(2) (g), 148 & 120 of INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence punishable under Sections 302 & 149 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and in default of fine, he has been directed to undergo further simple imprisonment of 1 year and further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 20,000/- under Section 376(2) (g) of the IPC and in default of fine, he has further been directed to undergo simple imprisonment of 1 year and further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence punishable under Sections 148 of the IPC. In default of payment of fine,
Conviction based on inconsistent witness testimonies necessitates suspension of sentence as credibility of evidence is crucial in criminal cases.
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.
Suspension of sentence granted due to lack of specific evidence against the appellant and completion of nine years of imprisonment, highlighting the importance of attributability in criminal convicti....
Victim's testimony can support conviction in absence of medical evidence; principle of parity applies to co-accused.
The court ruled that consistent witness testimony across related trials can justify bail suspension during appeal, emphasizing judicial discretion in such matters.
Inconsistencies in witness testimony can create reasonable doubt, leading to suspension of sentence pending appeal.
The court maintained that a convicted individual could be granted bail during appeal based on parity with co-defendants, while still upholding the conviction until the appeal is resolved.
The court affirmed that compelling evidence, including witness testimony and DNA analysis, justified the conviction and denied the suspension of the sentence.
Suspension of sentence is justified when the appeal process is delayed significantly and key witness credibility is in question.
The court granted bail based on significant contradictions in the victim's testimony, establishing that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
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
