Jharkhand High Court
Shankar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 308 of 2020
Shankar Singh --- --- 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, Advoate
For the Respondent : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
05/17.08.2021 Heard Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, learned retained counsel of Jharkhand
Legal Services Committee representing the appellant and learned A.P.P.
Mrs. Vandana Bharti on the prayer for suspension of sentence made
through I.A. No. 3750 of 2021.
The sole appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 302 and 307 of the I.P.C by the impugned judgment of
conviction dated 05.12.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No. 317 of 2013 by
the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, East Singhbhum at
Jamshedpur and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life with a fine of
Rs.20,000/- and a default sentence under section of 302 of the I.P.C. and
R.I. for 7 years and a fine of Rs.20,000/- and a default sentence under
section 307 of the I.P.C by the impugned order of sentence dated
06.12.2019.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are material
contradictions in the deposition of prosecution witnesses though 17
prosecution witnesses have been examined to support its case. P.W.1 is
not an eye witness. P.W.2 though claims to be an eye witness to assault
on Navin Singh, the deceased, but he is an interested witness being son
of the deceased. P.W.3 states that he did not know the appellant and was
only informed about the appellant's identity by the hospital staff. P.W.5
is a hearsay witness. P.W.6 has turned hostile. P.W.7, though claims to be
an eye witness but his evidence is not credit worthy as he claims to have
seen the incident from a distance of 10 meters but did not attempt to save
the life of the alleged victims. P.W.8's statement does not establish that
he is an eye witness. P.W.9 being father of injured Manoranjan Singh, a
child and P.W.3, is an interested and hearsay witness. P.W.10 has not
seen the assault by the appellant on other alleged victim. P.W.11 claims
to be an eye witness but his statement is not credit worthy as he has seen
the incidence from a distance of 100-150 yards. P.W.12 is a hearsay
witness. The medical evidence of P.W.13 and P.W.14 does not
corroborate the ocular evidence of other prosecution witness. No
forensic examination of the seized 'dauli' has been done by the
Investigating Officer, P.W.16. The purported injuries on the two injured
victims Manoranjan Singh (P.W.3) and Bhakru Oraon are simple in
nature. Prosecution has also not examined any of the two witness of the
inquest report of the body of Koki Singh. Though the prosecution
witnesses have stated that he was apprehended by the villagers on
06.04.2013 and was handed over to the police but arrest was shown on
08.04.2013. Appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
has consistently taken the plea of mental problem at the time of
occurrence. It is submitted that the nature of the assault also depicts that
the assault was made by a person who was not mentally stable. Appellant
has remained in custody since 08.04.2013 i.e., more than 8 years by now
and during trial he has never been released on bail. Therefore, he may be
granted bail by suspending his sentence.
Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer. She has submitted that the
appellant killed two innocent persons, brother-in-law of the informant
and one 70 years old lady Koki Singh by a 'dauli' which was being
carried by Koki Singh while she was picking up 'mahua' in the forest.
The injured witness P.W.3 Manoranjan Singh clearly stated about the
assault by this appellant and identified him also during trial. Other
prosecution witness i.e., informant P.W.2, P.W.7, all have supported the
occurrence which took place at around 07.15 a.m. in the morning. The
post mortem report adduced by the doctor P.W.13 and P.W.14 also show
several ante mortem injuries caused by sharp cutting heavy weight
weapon. 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 by them from the
L.C.R including the period of custody undergone by the appellant since
his arrest on 08.04.2013 till date. Having regard to the aforesaid facts
and circumstances, it appears that as a result of the assault committed by
the appellant, two persons have been killed and two other were injured
by use of sharp cutting weapon called 'dauli' and that P.W.1, P.W.2 and
the injured witness P.W.3 have supported the occurrence, so is the
injuries found during the post mortem. It is also clear that no plea of
legal insanity was taken in trial. Therefore, we are not inclined to enlarge
the appellant on bail by granting the privilege of suspension of sentence
at this stage. Accordingly, I.A. No. 3750 of 2021 is rejected.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
A.Mohanty
