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
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 fo
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.