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.

ORDER :

I.A. No. 281 of 2025

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 430(1) of the BNSS, 2023 for suspension of sentence dated 30.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge ( POCSO Act ), Simdega in POCSO Case No.10 of 2021, in connection with Kersai P.S. Case No.03 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. No. 185 of 2021, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo RI for 20 years under Section 376AB of the Indian Penal Code with fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine RI for 06 months.

2. It has been contended on behalf of appellant that it is a case where the prosecution has miserably failed in establishing the charge against the appellant since there is wide contradiction in between the testimonies of the witnesses more particularly in the testimony of informant [P.W. 4]. It has been submitted that even the fact about commission of rape has not been corroborated by the doctor, who has been examined as P.W. 7.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant based upon the aforesaid ground has submitted that it is a fit case for suspension of sentence.

4. While on the other hand, Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned Special Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent- State has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence.

5. It has been contended that the P.W. 1, the victim has fully supported the prosecution version as would be evident from paragraph 2 of her testimony having been corroborated by the doctor [P.W. 7] at paragraph 5.

6. It has further been contended that even the informant [P.W. 4] has fully supported the prosecution version along with other witnesses.

7. Submission, therefore, has been made that since the victim has all along supported the prosecution version, and the nature of crime is heinous, as such the prayer for suspension is not fit to be allowed.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment and the testimony of the witnesses.

9. This Court, after going through the testimonies of P.W. 1, victim, who was 11 years of age at the time of occurrence, has found that she has fully supported the prosecution version particularly the fact about the narration of the incidence, as has been recorded at paragraph 2, which has fully been supported by the doctor [P.W. 7], at paragraph 5 of the examination. The other witnesses i.e., P.W. 4 [informant], P.W. 2 and 3 have also supported the prosecution version.

10. This Court, considering the aforesaid facts, is of the view that the appellant has not been able to make out a prima facie case for suspension of sentence and hence the instant Interlocutory Application deserves to be dismissed

11. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 281 of 2025 stands dismissed.

12. It is made clear that any observation(s) made hereinabove will not prejudice the case of the parties on merit since the appeal is lying pending for its consideration.