Jharkhand High Court
Naresh Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 2225 of 2017
1.Naresh Yadav
2.Azad Raut --- --- Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
For the Appellants : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Suraj Verma, A.P.P.
06/16.12.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Rajesh Kumar and
learned A.P.P. Mr. Suraj Verma on the prayer for suspension of sentence
made by the appellant through I.A. No. 2923 of 2021.
Both appellants along with Bhim Yadav and Laxmi Mahto @
Vikky have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section
364(A), 379 and 120(B) of the I.P.C by the impugned judgment dated
11.12.2017 passed in S.T. No. 217 of 2006 by the court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge-IX cum FTC for rape cases, Hazaribag and all
of them have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of
Rs.10,000/- each and a default sentence each u/s 364(A) I.P.C. read with
Section 120(B) I.P.C. and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years
u/s 379 I.P.C. read with Section 120(B) I.P.C by the impugned order of
sentence of the same date.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that prosecution story
as per the informant (P.W.3), who had come to Ranchi for some official
work, alleges kidnaping of his friend, an Assistant Commissioner of
Income Tax posted at Dhanbad, at Barakar River Bridge. It is submitted
that as per the prosecution case the appellants and one more accused
Bhim Yadav were apprehended from the place where the kidnapee was
kept but appellants were not put on test identification parade as per the
clear statement of the Officer-in-charge of Chouparan Police Station
(P.W.5). P.W.1 though has identified other accused persons but these two
appellants were on representation under Section 317 of the Cr.P.C. and
could not be identified. P.W.3 has not identified these two appellants
except one Laxmi Mahto @ Vikky. As such, appellants, who are in
custody since the date of their conviction may be enlarged on bail by
suspending their sentence.
Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer. He submits that these two
appellants along with one other accused were apprehended from the spot
near 'Shamshan Ghat' where the kidnapee was kept. They were on
representation during examination of P.W.1, as such, no question for
disputing their identification in court arises. The appellants and other
accomplices have indulged in kidnapping of the officer of the rank of
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax in order to gain ransom.
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. Having regard to the fact that appellants have been
apprehended from the place of occurrence i.e., the 'Shamshan Ghat'
where the kidnapee was kept and also the gravity of the offence, we are
not inclined to enlarge the appellants on bail.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 2923 of 2021 is rejected.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
A.Mohanty
