Jharkhand High Court
Jairam Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 15 of 2019
Jairam Mahto --- --- Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
For the Appellant : M/s Indrajit Sinha, Shishir Suman, Advocates
For the State : Mr. P.K. Appu, A.P.P
08/14.12.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Indrajit Sinha assisted
by learned counsel Mr. Shishir Suman and Mr. P.K. Appu, learned A.P.P
on the prayer for suspension of sentence made by the appellant through
I.A. No. 3566 of 2020.
Sole appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under
Sections 302 and 201 of the I.P.C. while the co-accused Parvati Devi and
Ramesh Mahto have been acquitted of the charges by the impugned
judgment dated 07.09.2018 passed in Sessions Trial No. 517 of 2016 by
the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-X, Ranchi and
has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.
5000/- and a default sentence u/s 302 I.P.C. and further sentenced to
undergo R.I. for 2 years with a fine of Rs.1000/- and a default sentence
u/s 201 of the I.P.C. by the impugned order of sentence date 14.09.2018.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that earlier the prayer
for suspension of sentence of this appellant was dismissed as not pressed
vide order dated 05.09.2019. The prayer for suspension of sentence has
been renewed both on merits and on the grounds of custody of about 6
years 5 months since 26.08.2015. Appellant is the father-in-law of the
deceased. The husband of the deceased has died due to consumption of
poison as alleged by the informant- brother of the deceased in the
fardbeyan recorded on 26.08.2015 at 11.00 a.m. He submits that the dead
body was found on a barren land which had marks of injury on neck and
other part of the body as also corroborated by the medical evidence of
P.W.9 doctor by post mortem report ext. 4. The doctor has opined that
death was caused due to asphyxia by pressing over neck and there were
anti mortem injuries also. It is submitted that P.W.3, brother of the
appellant has deposed in favour of the prosecution and also admitted at
para 30 of his cross examination that there was a land dispute existing
between the appellant and P.W.3. The house of the appellant was set on
fire by the aggrieved villagers. He submits that P.W.4 claimed himself to
be the eye witness. He is the cousin brother of the appellant. P.W.7 heard
about the occurrence from co-villagers of the appellant and thereafter
saw the dead body. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that
the prosecution evidence does not establish commission of the offence
by the appellant and more over the learned Trial Court has acquitted the
other co-accused Parvati Devi and Ramesh Mahto who are the wife and
son of the appellant, though the informant-P.W.8 and P.W.3, brother of
the appellant have alleged that they were also involved in pressing the
deceased by catching her legs, arms etc. while her neck was being
pressed by this appellant. Therefore, when the prosecution story as
regards other co-accused has been disbelieved by the learned Trial Court,
the conviction against this appellant suffers from serious errors in
appreciation of evidence. Appellant has remained in custody for about 6
years 5 months, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail by suspending his
sentence.
Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer. He has submitted that the
prosecution witness P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.7, who are the brother of the
appellant and co-villagers, have fully corroborated the prosecution
version. The son of the appellant has died earlier by consuming poison
also on account of quarrel with his own father-appellant. Therefore,
appellant, who has a criminal bent of mind, does not deserves to be
released on bail.
We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the
parties and taken note of the materials relied upon by them from the lower
court record including the period of custody undergone by the appellant.
Having regard to the evidence of P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.7 and medical
evidence of P.W.9 as also the statement of the informant-P.W.8, sister of
the deceased P.W.1 and P.W.5 cousin brother of the deceased, we are not
inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail at this stage. Accordingly, I.A.
No. 3566 of 2020 is rejected.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
A.Mohanty
