Jharkhand High Court
Ranjeet Suren vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 83 of 2020
Ranjeet Suren --- --- Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
Through Video Conferencing
For the Appellant : Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P.
05/11.08.2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties on the prayer for suspension
of sentence of the appellant made through I.A. No. 3331 of 2021.
The sole appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 302 of the I.P.C by the impugned judgment of conviction
dated 26.09.2019 passed in S.T. Case No. 97 of 2017 by the court of
learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa and
has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and
a default sentence by the impugned order of sentence dated 30.09.2019.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the informant
P.W.7 Jargi Jerai is the son of the deceased, who has not supported the
case of the prosecution and turned hostile. He also states that the dead
body was seen at the police station whereas the inquest report (Ext.4)
shows that the dead body was found in a cot in the house of Mata Soren,
P.W.8, who has also turned hostile. As per the case of the informant, on
17.02.2017 his father (deceased) had gone to the house of his father's
maternal uncle P.W.8 Mata Soren for 'maghe festival'. Out of 10
prosecution witnesses, 7 prosecution witnesses have turned hostile
including the informant P.W.7 Jargi Jerai; P.W.3 Jarman Jerai, cousin
brother of the deceased; P.W.5 Anil Nayak, an independent witness;
PW.6 Ram Chandra Jerai also a witness related to the deceased. Except
P.W.1 Vishnu Soren, who is brother of this appellant, the Medical Officer
P.W.4 Dr. Sanjay Kujur as also the Investigating Officer P.W.10 Brijlal
Ram, no other prosecution witness has supported the case of the
prosecution. The statement of P.W.1 Vishnu Soren does not stand
corroborated with statement of P.W.2 Ganesh Chatar regarding whom
P.W.1 says that he had returned along with him after attending a sraadh
ceremony. It is further submitted that appellant has remained in custody
for 4 ½ years from 21.02.2017 i.e., the date of his arrest. Therefore,
appellant may be enlarged on bail by suspending his sentence during
pendency of this appeal as the prosecution evidence is not reliable
enough to uphold the conviction of guilt upon this appellant.
Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer. He submits that P.W.1
Vishnu Soren, own brother of the appellant, has stated in his deposition
that the appellant had assaulted the deceased. The deceased was alive
when he came back after attending the sraadh ceremony along with
P.W.2 Ganesh Chatar. It is further submitted that the dead body was
found in the house of Mata Soren, P.W.8, father of P.W.1 Vishnu Soren
and the inquest report also supports the presence of dead body in the
house of P.W. 8 Mata Soren. P.W.4 Dr. Sanjay Kujur has found 3 injuries
caused by hard and blunt substance, as a cause of death due to
hemorrhage, which corroborates the allegation made by the informant in
his fardbeyan. As such, appellant may not be enlarged on bail.
We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and taken note of the materials relied upon from the lower court
record including the period of custody undergone by the appellant. On
consideration of materials on record, it appears that out of 10
prosecution witnesses, 7 prosecution witnesses have turned hostile,
which include the informant, son of the deceased and also the father of
P.W.1 Vishnu Soren i.e., P.W.8 Mata Soren. It further appears that though
the inquest report is stated to have been prepared at the house of P.W.8
Mata Soren, but the informant in his deposition states that he saw the
dead body in the police station. Taking into account all these facts and
circumstances, we are inclined to grant the privilege of suspension of
sentence to the appellant.
Accordingly, the appellant, named above, during the pendency of
this appeal, shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.
10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, West
Singhbhum at Chaibasa in connection with S.T. Case No. 97 of 2017
with the condition that he and his bailors shall not change their address
or mobile number without permission of the learned Trial Court.
I.A. No. 3331 of 2021 stands allowed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
A.Mohanty
