Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR, JJ
Kistu Marandi, S/o Late Parmeshwar Marandi – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
ORDER :
I.A. No. 11265 of 2024
The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 430(1) of the BNSS, 2023 for suspension of sentence of the appellant in connection with the judgment of conviction dated 12.07.2024 and order of sentence dated 18.07.2024 passed in Sessions Trial No. 79 of 2018 arising out of Littipara P.S. Case No. 40 of 2017 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pakur whereby and where under, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 376 r/w 511 and 379 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with a fine of Rs.50,000/- and a default sentence of S.I. for 1 years under Section 376/511 of the IPC and R.I. for 3 years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and a default sentence of S.I. for 6 months under Section 379 IPC .
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where none of the ingredients of Sections 376/511 and 379 of the IPC is available but even then the appellant has been convicted under the aforesaid penal offences.
3. It has been contended that there is vital improvement in the prosecution version if the statement of the prosecutrix recorded in the F.I.R is compared with
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; failure to substantiate one charge affects the credibility of related charges.
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 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 found mutual consent in the relationship, questioning the basis of blackmail allegations, and granted bail due to the appellant's prolonged custody exceeding half of the sentence.
Suspension of sentence is justified when the appeal process is delayed significantly and key witness credibility is in question.
Evidence of a prolonged relationship can influence the decision for suspending a sentence under IPC provisions, particularly where the victim's testimony supports the defense.
Inconsistencies in witness testimony can create reasonable doubt, leading to suspension of sentence pending appeal.
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.
A co-accused's confession cannot solely result in the conviction of another accused if direct evidence implicating them is absent, justifying suspension of sentence.
The court established that under Section 389 Cr.P.C., a convicted individual may have their sentence suspended if there are substantial grounds for appeal.
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
