Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J., PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Hariom Choudhari @ Hariom Choudhary Son Of Late Babulal Choudhari @ Late Mansa Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the case and prosecution basis. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding appellant's innocence and previous bail. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court analysis on previous rulings and co-accuseds' bail. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. decision to suspend the sentence. (Para 15) |
| 5. final order for bail release. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
I.A. No. 10682 of 2024:
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of appellant no. 1, namely, Hariom Choudhari @ Hariom Choudhary, for suspension of sentence during the pendency of the instant appeal after suspending the impugned order of sentence dated 13.03.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Koderma in Sessions Trial No. 73 of 2022 arising out of Jainagar P.S. Case No. 2 of 2022, whereby and whereunder, the appellant no. 1 has been convicted to go rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine further R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 120(B); R.I. for seven years with fine of Rs.12,000 and in default of payment of fine R.I. for 15 months for the offence under section 366-A IPC and further R.I.
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 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 consistent witness testimony across related trials can justify bail suspension during appeal, emphasizing judicial discretion in such matters.
The court emphasized that suspension of sentence post-conviction requires strong reasons, as the presumption of innocence is no longer applicable.
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....
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.
Conviction based on inconsistent witness testimonies necessitates suspension of sentence as credibility of evidence is crucial in criminal cases.
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
