Jharkhand High Court
Ramesh Pramanik; vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
------
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 774 of 2018
1. Ramesh Pramanik;
2. Pintu Pramanik ... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
------- (Through VC)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
------
For the Appellants : Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, APP
------
nd
Order No. 07/Dated: 22 December, 2021
IA No. 2797 of 2021
This matter has been assigned to DB-III by the Hon'ble the Chief
Justice by an order dated 24th August 2021 passed on administrative side.
2. This interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the
appellant Ramesh Pramanik for suspension of sentence awarded to him,
during pendency of this criminal appeal.
3. Ramesh Pramanik and Pintu Pramanik @ Pintoo Parmanik were
convicted and sentenced to RI for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each under
section 302 of the Indian Penal Code with a default stipulation to undergo
further imprisonment for three months. For committing the offence under
section 27 of the Arms Act, both were awarded punishment of RI for three
years and a fine of Rs. 2000/- each.
4. This is second application by Ramesh Pramanik seeking
suspension of sentence during pendency of Cr. Appeal (DB) No.774 of 2018.
5. By an order dated 22nd October 2018 passed in IA No. 6067 of
2018, Pintu Pramanik who is the appellant No.2 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 774
of 2018 was granted bail by suspending the aforesaid sentences awarded to
him.
6. By the said order, observing that there is direct allegation made
by the deceased against Ramesh Pramanik that he shot at him, the prayer for
suspension of sentence made on behalf of Ramesh Pramanik was declined.
7. Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, the learned APP, has informed us that
according to the communication dated 21st December 2021, Ramesh
2 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 774 of 2018
Pramanik has remained in custody for more than ten years and two months,
with remission.
8. Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, the learned counsel for Ramesh Pramanik,
submits that in the Sessions Court's Judgment, the learned trial Judge has
recorded contradictory findings inasmuch as recording of dying declaration
of Tilu Sardar by the Investigating Officer was doubted, still, this appellant
has been held guilty.
9. We have glanced through the judgment in Sessions Trial No. 78
of 2013. In the trial, twelve witnesses were examined by the prosecution to
prove the charge of murder against Ramesh Pramanik, Pintu Pramanik and
Karmu Pramanik. The learned trial Judge acquitted Karmu Pramanik who is
father of the other two accused on the ground that a part of the prosecution
story which involves Karmu Pramanik exhorting his sons to kill Tilu Sardar
was not believable. The learned trial Judge has commented upon presence of
PW1, PW2, PW4, PW6 and PW7 at the time of occurrence as Tilu Sardar did
not make a reference about their presence in his dying declaration which was
treated as fardbeyan. The defence produced certified copy of order sheet in
Sessions Trial Case No. 315 of 2011 to show that Tilu Sardar has always
signed in Hindi, whereas, the fardbeyan bore his signature in Engilish. There
was no certification by the doctor about fitness of Tilu Sardar that he could
make statement and, moreover, the time of restatement of Tilu Sardar as
spoken by the Investigating Officer was not accepted by the learned trial
Judge on the ground that admittedly at that time Tilu Sardar was in operation
theater. The learned trial Judge further observed that there are some
exaggerations in the evidence of prosecution witnesses but those
exaggerations were not material. We further find that "CD Delux" motorcycle
which according to Tilu Sardar was used by the assailants was not recovered
and recovery of a black coloured 'Splendor' motorcycle from the house of
Karmu Pramanik was considered an incriminating material against the
accused.
10. In our opinion, the aforesaid findings recorded by the learned
trial Judge make out a prima facie case in favour of Ramesh Pramanik and,
therefore, we are inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to him in Sessions
Trial No. 78 of 2013.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the appellant,
namely, Ramesh Pramanik is directed to be released on bail, during pendency
3 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 774 of 2018
of the appeal, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand
only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-XIII, Jamshedpur in connection with
Sessions Trial No. 78 of 2013 with the conditions that: (i) he shall make
himself available in the Court whenever his presence is required (ii) he shall
provide his mobile number and present address supported by Aadhaar card
(iii) he shall not change his place of residence, and (iv) whenever this
criminal appeal is taken up for hearing, he shall remain himself present or
through his lawyer in the Court.
12. IA No. 2797 of 2021 is allowed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
SB/Nibha (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
