High CourtsSingle Bench

Ramchandra Singh And Ors vs State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 3 March 2021 · Citation: (2021) 03 JH CK 0065

HON’BLE JUDGES
Amitav K. Gupta, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 389(1) · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376, 498 A, 511 · Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Section 4
CASE NUMBER
I.A. No. 3582 of 2020 In Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 336, 337 of 2020
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

22 paragraphs · 365 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 15.02.2020, passed by the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Koderma (Fast

Track Court for Offence against Woman) in S.T. No.55 of 2015, whereby the appellant has been found guilty and convicted for the offence under

Sections 498 A, 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3.

Learned counsel for the appellant has emphatically argued that the appellant is the father-in-law and he has been falsely implicated on account of

land dispute amongst the brothers of the informant's husband. Learned counsel also submits that D.W. 3, who is the 'Bhagini' of the informant, has

categorically stated that the allegation of committing rape against the appellant is false. It is submitted that the appellant is aged more than 75 years

and he is in custody for nearly 16 months.

4.

Learned P.P. has opposed the prayer and submitted that the victim has been examined as P.W. 11 and the witnesses, who were the members of

the 'Panchayati' as well as P.W. 9, the husband of the informant, have supported the allegation that the appellant had entered the room of P.W.11 and

attempted to commit rape on her.

5.

Heard. In view of the testimony of P.W. 11, P.W. 9 and the witnesses, who were the members of the 'Panchayati', I am not inclined to suspend the

sentence and enlarge the appellant on bail, at this stage.

6.

In the result, I.A. No. 3582 of 2020 stands rejected.

...

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 337 of 2020 ...

1.

Office to list the appeal under the heading 'For hearing' and if the appeal is not taken up for hearing by October, 2021, the appellant is at liberty to

renew his prayer for bail.

...

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 336 of 2020 ...

1.

On the prayer of the learned counsel for the appellant, Office to list the appeal under the appropriate heading on 12.03.2021.