IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Akbar Nagesia S/o Balendar Nagesia - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1298 of 2024
Decided On : 19-03-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 430(1) - Indian Penal Code - Section 376
(D) - Suspension of sentence - Appellant convicted for gang rape and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine - Testimony of victim supported conviction, but lack of medical corroboration raised doubt - Court emphasized need for parity in treatment of co-accused. (Paras 1, 2, 4, 8, 9)
(B) Criminal Law - Appeal for suspension of sentence - The court must consider the reliability of the victim's testimony despite the absence of medical evidence - The principle of parity dictates similar treatment for similarly situated co-accused. (Paras 5, 8)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for gang rape based on the victim's testimony, which was not corroborated by medical evidence. The co-accused's application for suspension was rejected, influencing the court's decision on the appellant's application.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the victim's identification of the appellant and the co-accused justified the conviction despite the lack of medical support.
Issues: Whether the absence of medical corroboration undermines the victim's testimony and the applicability of the principle of parity in sentencing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the victim's testimony is sufficient for conviction even without medical corroboration, and the principle of parity must be applied to similarly situated co-accused.
Result: Application for suspension of sentence rejected.
ORDER :
I.A. No. 2752 of 2025
1. This instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of appellant under Section 430(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for suspension of sentence dated 27.11.2021 passed by learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Lohardaga in connection with Sessions Trial No. 29 of 2019, arising out of Kisko P.S. Case No.04 of 2019 (G.R. Case No.95 of 2019) whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offences under Section376 (D) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for twenty years with a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for six months.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that although the P.W.-3, the Victim, has supported the prosecution version, but her testimony has not been supported by the Doctor, who has been examined as P.W.-5. Hence, it is a case where the judgment of conviction has been passed discarding the testimony of Doctor P.W.-5 and as such, it is fit case for suspension of sentence.
3. While on the other hand, Mr. Satish Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence.
4. The reason has been assigned by him that the prayer for suspension of sentence of co-accused namely, Budhman @ Budhram Nagesia @ Budhman Nagesia, whose name has been disclosed by P.W.-3, Victim, along with present appellant has been rejected by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.08.2022 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 259 of 2022.
5. Learned counsel for the State, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that P.W.-3, the victim, who has supported the prosecution version and as such, even if the Doctor has not supported the testimony of P.W.-3 cannot be said to be not a reliable evidence for the purpose of convicting the present appellant.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment as also the testimony of witnesses available in the trial court record and also material exhibits.
7. The case has been listed along with the record of Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 259 of 2022 and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 397 of 2021, the record respectively by one Budhman @ Budhram Nagesia @ Budhman Nagesia and Nand Kishore Nagesia and Bhuneshwar Nagesia. It appears from record of both the appeals i.e. Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 259 of 2022 and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 397 of 2021 that is Nand Kishore Nagesia and Bhuneshwar Nagesia, the appellants in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 397 of 2021 have been directed to be released on bail after suspension of sentence, whereas Budhman @ Budhram Nagesia @ Budhman Nagesia, appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 259 of 2022, whose prayer for suspension of sentence has been rejected.
8. This Court, in order to have the issue of parity to be considered, has considered the culpability said to be committed by the present appellant and for that the aforesaid purpose, we have gone through the testimony of P.W.3, the victim and found there from that the victim has disclosed the name of Budhman @ Budhram Nagesia @ Budhman Nagesia, the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 259 of 2022 and the present appellant, namely, Akbar Nagesia along with two other persons. The name of the two other accused persons, to whom, the victim was acquainted by face has been disclosed by her. These two persons, namely, Nand Kishore Nagesia and Bhuneshwar Nagesia, the appellants in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 397 of 2021 has been impleaded in the present case. Learned Co- ordinate Bench on taking into consideration, no specific disclosure of the names of these two persons, namely, Nand Kishore Nagesia and Bhuneshwar Nagesia, has allowed both the persons to be released on bail after suspension of sentence. But the case of the Budhman @ Budhram Nagesia @ Budhman Nagesia has been rejected. The P.W.3, since has taken the name of Budhman @ Budhram Nagesia @ Budhman Nagesia and also t
Victim's testimony can support conviction in absence of medical evidence; principle of parity applies to co-accused.
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.
Conviction based on inconsistent witness testimonies necessitates suspension of sentence as credibility of evidence is crucial in criminal cases.
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 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 court ruled the victim's consistent testimony sufficiently supports conviction under the POCSO Act, thus rejecting the suspension of sentence.
Suspension of sentence is justified when the appeal process is delayed significantly and key witness credibility is in question.
The court emphasized the necessity of credible witness testimony for a conviction, ruling that inconsistencies in evidence justified the suspension of the appellant's sentence.
Inconsistencies in witness testimony can create reasonable doubt, leading to suspension of sentence pending appeal.
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.