High CourtsSingle Bench

Manik Karmakar vs State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 24 February 2021 · Citation: (2021) 02 JH CK 0197

HON’BLE JUDGES
Amitav K. Gupta, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 389(1) · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376
CASE NUMBER
I.A. No. 5885 Of 2020 In Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 492 Of 2018
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

19 paragraphs · 396 words
1.

This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of the sentence and grant of

ad-interim bail to the appellant, during the pendency of the appeal.

2.

The appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12.01.2018, passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Dhanbad in Sessions

Trial Case No. 47 of 2014, whereby the appellant has been found guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 7 years and a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default, thereof, to suffer simple imprisonment of 6 months.

3.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has remained in custody for nearly 5 years out of the imposed sentence of 7 years. It is

submitted that P.W. 6, the Doctor, who examined the victim (P.W.7) on the next date of the occurrence, did not find any signs of violence or injury on

the person or private part of the victim. It is argued by the learned counsel that P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, the mother and father have not supported the

version of the victim and save and except for P.W.7 (the victim) deposition, the other witnesses have not supported her version.

4.

Learned A.P.P. has opposed and submitted that P.W. 7 has stated that when she had gone to attend the nature's call, then the appellant had

committed rape on her.

5.

Perused the materials on record and statement of P.W. 3 (victim's sister), who has stated that P.W. 7 had gone towards the field and when she did

not return, she went looking for her and then she saw the prosecutrix was crying and when she asked her, then she stated that the appellant had

committed rape on her. P.W. 3 has testified that she had seen the appellant running away.

In view of the materials on record, at this stage, I am not inclined to suspend the sentence and enlarge the appellant on bail.

6.

In the result, I.A. No. 5885 of 2020 stands rejected.

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 492 of 2018 ...

1.

Office to list the appeal under the heading 'For Hearing' in June, 2021.

2.

If the appeal is not taken up for hearing by June, 2021, the appellant is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.