IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ
Sunil Munda, Son of Dara Singh Munda – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
ORDER :
I.A. No.10208 of 2024
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 430 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for suspension of sentence dated 18.10.2023 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-IV-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Ranchi in POCSO Case No.81 of 2020, arising out of Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No. 205 of 2020 whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 376(D) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 20 years along with fine of Rs.15,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further S.I. for six months.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where if the testimony of all the witnesses will be taken together then there will be material contradiction and as such, on the aforesaid ground only the judgment passed by the learned trial court will be said to suffer from infirmities and hence, it is a fit case for suspension of sentence.
3. Learned counsel has further submitted that even the testimony of the victim, who has been examined as P.W.2 will be taken into consideration then also the same cannot be said to be trustworthy and hence, on this count
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.
Inconsistencies in witness testimony can create reasonable doubt, leading to suspension of sentence pending appeal.
The court affirmed that compelling evidence, including witness testimony and DNA analysis, justified the conviction and denied the suspension of the sentence.
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....
Victim's testimony can support conviction in absence of medical evidence; principle of parity applies to co-accused.
The court emphasized that suspension of sentence post-conviction requires strong reasons, as the presumption of innocence is no longer applicable.
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.
Conviction based on inconsistent witness testimonies necessitates suspension of sentence as credibility of evidence is crucial in criminal cases.
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.
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.