Jharkhand High Court
Krishna Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 26 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 730 of 2019
Krishna 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. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P
---
03/26.08.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Kripa Shankar
Nanda and learned A.P.P. Mrs. Vandana Bharti on the prayer for suspension of
sentence made through I.A. No.4092/2021.
2. Sole appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 302 of the I.P.C by the impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 14.06.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No.34/2017 by
the court of learned Sessions Judge, Simdega and has been sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and a default
sentence.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the informant is
the son of the deceased upon whose Fardbeyan recorded on 8th November
2016 the F.I.R. has been instituted. The informant alleged in the Fardbeyan
that on 7th November 2016 at 6:00 P.M. he was working at the door of his
house and his mother was inside when the accused, maternal uncle of the
informant aged 50 years, came to his house. He heard the shouts of his mother
aged 65 years for help and when he went inside, he saw the accused hitting
his mother with a Pidha, but when he tried to save her the accused kept on
hitting his mother on the head and then took away the Pidha to his place.
Since the incidence occurred in the evening, he could not give information to
the Police Station on the same date. It is submitted that the informant has set
up a totally different picture of the incidence while being examined as P.W.3
wherein he has alleged that he and the accused had gone to tend ox and the
accused returned to house early and he came later. Before he had come to his
house, his maternal uncle i.e., accused had assaulted his mother with wooden
Pidha, as a result of which she sustained injuries on her head and
fell down and died. When he reached his house, he saw the accused was
coming out of his house and went to his own house. It is submitted that the
informant has during trial changed his version which shows that he was not an
eye-witness to the occurrence. Even though he has stated that his wife and
children stay in the house but they have not been adduced in support of the
prosecution case. Though the accused was arrested on 8 th November 2016 at
7.30 A.M. and his confessional statement is stated to have been recorded at
7.45 A.M. and the seizure of the wooden Pidha is shown from the roof of the
house of the appellant with blood stains, but the seizure list witness namely
Tilak Singh (P.W.1) has in his deposition at paragraph-6 stated that the Pidha
was seized near the dead body. Even the informant in his statement at
paragraph-10 states that he inscribed his signature on the seizure list and the
inquest report at the Police Station. There are no other eye-witnesses to the
occurrence. Informant has not shown any motive for the own maternal uncle
i.e. the appellant to kill his own sister i.e. mother of the informant. Simply
production of the FSL report of the blood stained Pidha and the blood stained
earth recovered from the place of occurrence as being of human blood group
'O' would not be sufficient to prove that the appellant and the appellant alone
was the assailant who killed his own sister i.e. mother of the informant. No
other independent witnesses have been examined by the Investigating Officer.
From perusal of the post-mortem report also it would appear that the dead
body was received at 7:00 A.M. on 8th November 2016 while the inquest
report is also stated to have been prepared at the same time at the place of
occurrence. The informant has himself stated that the Police Station is at a
distance of 10 Kms. from his village. These serious discrepancies in the
prosecution evidence and contradiction in the deposition of the informant
makes the whole case doubtful. The appellant has been in custody since 8th
November 2016 i.e. the date of institution of the F.I.R. and is now aged 54
years. Therefore, he may be enlarged on bail by suspending his sentence
during pendency of this appeal.
4. Learned A.P.P. has strongly opposed the prayer. She submits that
the informant in his Fardbeyan has clearly stated that the accused had taken
away the Pidha to his own house and recovery has also been made from the
roof of the house of the appellant on his confession and in his presence which
he has never objected to. The FSL report shows human blood both on the
blood stained earth collected from the place of occurrence and the Pidha used
by the appellant for assaulting the victim. As such, appellant may not be
enlarged on bail by suspending his sentence at this stage.
5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and taken note of the materials on record relied upon from the lower
court records including the period of custody undergone by the appellant.
6. On consideration of the materials on record and the submissions
of the parties, it appears that the informant has while deposing as P.W.3
conveyed that he reached his house after the occurrence and had not seen the
occurrence, whereas in the Fardbeyan he has posed himself as an eye-witness.
It further appears from the statement of the informant and the seizure list
witness (P.W.1) that the blood stained Pidha was seized from near the dead
body and the informant as P.W.3 has himself stated that he has signed on the
seizure list and the inquest report at the Police Station. Appellant is in custody
since 8th November 2016.
7. Taking into account all these facts and circumstances, we are
inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail by suspending his sentence during
pendency of this appeal. Accordingly, the appellant is directed to be released
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 Sessions
Judge, Simdega in connection with Sessions Trial No.34/2017 with the
condition that the appellant as well as his bailors shall not change their
addresses and mobile numbers, if any, without prior permission of the learned
trial court. I.A. No.4092 of 2021 stands disposed of.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J)
Shamim/
