IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar, JJ
Mukesh Kumar Mahto – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
ORDER :
I.A. No. 385 of 2025
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of sole appellant under Section 430 (1) of BNSS, 2023 for suspension of sentence dated 27.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, FTC (CAW), Bermo at Tenughat in Sessions Trial No. 467 of 2022 arising out of Chandrapura P.S. Case No. 75 of 2022, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been found convicted under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 10,000 and in default of payment of fine he was further directed to undergo RI for six months.
2. It has been contended on behalf of appellant that the appellant has falsely been implicated even though there is no ingredient of Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code. It has further been submitted that since the marriage has not been solemnized, therefore, the present case has been instituted, which itself speaks that the prosecution version attracting Section 376 (2)(n) is not available.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the sentence is fit to be kept in abeyance by allowing the instant Interlocutory Appli
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 existence of a marriage and subsequent litigation initiated by the victim undermines the applicability of rape charges under Section 376 of the IPC.
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.
Presence at the crime scene can establish complicity under the POCSO Act, irrespective of whether physical acts are established.
Inconsistencies in witness testimony can create reasonable doubt, leading to suspension of sentence pending appeal.
Consent for companionship does not imply consent to sexual acts; coercion negates any claim of legitimate consent.
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.
Consent for sexual relations is not valid if obtained through deceit regarding marriage, requiring clear evidence of non-consensual elements, especially considering the duration of the relationship.
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.
The court held that corroborated eyewitness testimony substantiates conviction, while an unsupported alibi plea is insufficient for appeal suspension.
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.