JUDGMENT : I.A. No. 1830 of 2025 1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of appellant for suspension sentence dated 05.03.2024 respectively passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-II, Seraikella in Kuchai P.S. Case No. 09 of 2018 corresponding to S.T. No.130 of 2021, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been found guilty and convicted under Section 323, 376D/34 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly sentenced to undergo RI for 20 years with fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence under section 376D of I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine has been directed to undergo SI for one year and also sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year for the offence under section 323 of IPC. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where the prosecution has miserably failed in substantiating the charges beyond all reasonable doubts reason being that from perusal of the testimony of P.W. 6 (victim), what she has deposed in her examination-in-chief with respect to the commission of crime of rape by the appellant has not been supported in her cross-examination. Learned counsel, therefore, has submitted that the testimony of P.W.6 (victim), so far as the culpability said to be committed by the present appellant is concerned, cannot be said to be trustworthy, while the judgment of conviction of the present appellant is primarily based upon the testimony of P.W.6. 3. It has further been contended that the doubt is also there in view of the fact that it is an admitted case of the prosecution that the victim was accompanied by her brother-in-law and when three persons including the present appellant had caught hold of the victim on 11 th March, 2018, but the brother-in-law, who has been examined as P.W.1, has not disclosed the said occurrence to anybody and even not reported to the police with respect to overpowering the victim by the three persons including the present appellant. Therefore, the present case is filed only to falsely implicate the present appellant and hence, it is a fit case for suspension of sentence. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Shailesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence. 5. Therefore, the present case is filed only to falsely implicate the present appellant and hence, it is a fit case for suspension of sentence. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Shailesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the findings recorded by learned trial court in the impugned judgment as also the testimony of the witnesses as available in the Lower Court Records particularly the testimony of P.W. 6 and P.W.1. 6. We, after going through the testimony of P.W.6 (victim), have found that although she has supported the prosecution version regarding the culpability said to be committed by the present appellant, so far as the statement recorded in the examination-in-chief, but in her cross- examination she has deposed in Para 7 that she was knowing the present appellant and co-accused Sarful Munda prior to the said occurrence. We have also seen para 15 of her testimony wherein she has deposed that only Chole Munda, co-convict has committed rape upon her. 7. We have also considered the testimony of P.W.1 and found that no assertion has been given by him that what steps he has taken after the incident for the victim, who was accompanied him. There is no reference in the entire testimony that any information to the police has been given immediately after the P.W.1 said to flee away from the place of occurrence. 8. This court, considering the inconsistencies in the testimony of P.W.6, so far as the commission of crime said to be committed by the present appellant, is of the view that the sentence is to be suspended, during pendency of the appeal. 9. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application is allowed. 10. In view thereof, the appellant, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-II, Seraikella in Kuchai P.S. Case No. 09 of 2018 corresponding to S.T. No.130 of 2021. 11. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not prejudice the case of the parties on merit since the appeal is lying pending for its consideration.