SAMIR ORAON Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Appeal has been listed for passing appropriate order on the instant Interlocutory Application filed on behalf of appellant under Sec. 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence/grant of bail during the pendency of the instant Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 201 of 2024 in connection with S.T. No.153 of 2020, arising out of Bero P.S. Case No.115 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. No.235 of 2020 against the judgment of conviction dtd. 20/12/2023 and order of sentence dtd. 21/12/2023 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-1-Cum-Special Judge, F.T.C. (CAW), Ranchi whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Ss. 376, 341 and 323 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Sec. 376 of IPC with a fine of Rs.10,000.00 and in default in payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo S.I. for 6 months, further, the appellant was sentenced to undergo S.I. for a month under Sec. 341 of IPC, further directed to undergo RI for 6 months under Sec. 323 of IPC. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. Period already undergone in jail during investigation and trial are directed to be set-off under Sec. 428 of Cr. P.C. Provision for rehabilitation and compensation to the victim is also provided.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted by referring to the testimony of PW-5 i.e. the victim who has deposed in the examination-in-chief that the present appellant along with Raju had come to her house for the purpose of taking liquor and in course thereof the mobile phone of the present appellant has left in the house of the victim and when the present appellant had returned back for taking the mobile phone and for the aforesaid purpose, the appellant falsely been implicated in the instant case. It has further been submitted by referring to the testimony of the PW-5 which has been recorded in the cross- examination that the version which she has taken that the present appellant along with Raju had come to her residence has not been corroborated and hence the version of the victim cannot be said to be consistent. The testimony of the PW-4 has also been referred who is the daughter of the victim, PW-5 who has also deposed regarding the use of liquor both by the appellant and one Raju along with the PW-5.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has therefore submitted that by taking into consideration on the testimony of the PW-5 along with PW-4 the veracity of the finding which has been given by the learned trial Court is not said to be based upon the cogent evidence. The ground of the completion of the half of the custody is also taken.