IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Dutu Munda, son of Late Sham Munda - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. A (D.B) No. 553 of 2024 With I.A. No.1830 of 2025
Decided On : 27-02-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 323, 376D/34 - Interlocutory application for suspension of sentence - Appellant convicted for rape and assault, sentenced to 20 years RI and fine - Court found inconsistencies in victim's testimony, leading to doubts about the conviction - Sentence suspended pending appeal. (Paras 1-8)
(B) Testimony - The credibility of witness testimony is paramount; inconsistencies can undermine the prosecution's case. (Paras 6-8)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted based on the testimony of the victim, who later contradicted herself during cross-examination, raising doubts about the reliability of the prosecution's case. (Paras 2, 6)
Findings of Court:
The court identified significant inconsistencies in the victim's testimony and the failure of the prosecution to substantiate the charges beyond reasonable doubt, justifying the suspension of the sentence. (Paras 6-8)
Issues: Whether the inconsistencies in the victim's testimony warranted a suspension of the sentence pending appeal. (Para 8)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that inconsistencies in witness testimony can lead to reasonable doubt, which necessitates the suspension of the sentence while the appeal is pending. (Para 8)
Result: Interlocutory application allowed; appellant granted bail.
JUDGMENT :
I.A. No. 1830 of 2025
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of appellant for suspension sentence dated 05.03.2024 respectively passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-II, Seraikella in Kuchai P.S. Case No. 09 of 2018 corresponding to S.T. No.130 of 2021, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been found guilty and convicted under Section 323, 376D/34 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly sentenced to undergo RI for 20 years with fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence under section 376D of I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine has been directed to undergo SI for one year and also sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year for the offence under section 323 of IPC. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where the prosecution has miserably failed in substantiating the charges beyond all reasonable doubts reason being that from perusal of the testimony of P.W. 6 (victim), what she has deposed in her examination-in-chief with respect to the commission of crime of rape by the appellant has not been supported in her cross-examination. Learned counsel, therefore, has submitted that the testimony of P.W.6 (victim), so far as the culpability said to be committed by the present appellant is concerned, cannot be said to be trustworthy, while the judgment of conviction of the present appellant is primarily based upon the testimony of P.W.6.
3. It has further been contended that the doubt is also there in view of the fact that it is an admitted case of the prosecution that the victim was accompanied by her brother-in-law and when three persons including the present appellant had caught hold of the victim on 11th March, 2018, but the brother-in-law, who has been examined as P.W.1, has not disclosed the said occurrence to anybody and even not reported to the police with respect to overpowering the victim by the three persons including the present appellant. Therefore, the present case is filed only to falsely implicate the present appellant and hence, it is a fit case for suspension of sentence.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Shailesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the findings recorded by learned trial court in the impugned judgment as also the testimony of the witnesses as available in the Lower Court Records particularly the testimony of P.W. 6 and P.W.1.
6. We, after going through the testimony of P.W.6 (victim), have found that although she has supported the prosecution version regarding the culpability said to be committed by the present appellant, so far as the statement recorded in the examination-in-chief, but in her cross- examination she has deposed in Para 7 that she was knowing the present appellant and co-accused Sarful Munda prior to the said occurrence. We have also seen para 15 of her testimony wherein she has deposed that only Chole Munda, co-convict has committed rape upon her.
7. We have also considered the testimony of P.W.1 and found that no assertion has been given by him that what steps he has taken after the incident for the victim, who was accompanied him. There is no reference in the entire testimony that any information to the police has been given immediately after the P.W.1 said to flee away from the place of occurrence.
8. This court, considering the inconsistencies in the testimony of P.W.6, so far as the commission of crime said to be committed by the present appellant, is of the view that the sentence is to be suspended, during pendency of the appeal.
9. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application is allowed.
10. In view thereof, the appellant, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Di
Inconsistencies in witness testimony can create reasonable doubt, leading to suspension of sentence pending appeal.
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 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 victim's admission of consent complicates the prosecution's case under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC, warranting suspension of the appellant's sentence during appeal.
The victim's failure to report alleged rapes while living with a co-accused undermines her credibility, warranting suspension of the appellant's sentence pending appeal.
Presence at the crime scene can establish complicity under the POCSO Act, irrespective of whether physical acts are established.
The court affirmed that compelling evidence, including witness testimony and DNA analysis, justified the conviction and denied the suspension of the sentence.
The court emphasized that suspension of sentence post-conviction requires strong reasons, as the presumption of innocence is no longer applicable.
Consent for companionship does not imply consent to sexual acts; coercion negates any claim of legitimate consent.
The court affirmed conviction based on corroborative evidence from FSL reports, despite contradictions in medical testimony, establishing that consistent witness accounts support the prosecution's na....
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.