Jharkhand High Court
Nandu Seth vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 536 of 2020
Nandu Seth ....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. Chandrajit Mukherjee, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P
---
07/05.07.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee and
Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the
prayer for suspension of sentence made on behalf of this appellant through I.A.
No. 6233 of 2020.
Appellant along with five others have been convicted for the charges
under Sections 148,341,323/149,307/149, 302/149 of I.P.C by the impugned
judgment dated 11.06.2020 passed in Sessions Trial No. 332/2014 by the Court
of learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Garhwa. Appellant has been awarded
Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years under Section 148 of I.P.C; Rigorous
Imprisonment for 1 year under Section 323 of I.P.C; Simple Imprisonment for
one month under Section 341 of I.P.C; Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years with
a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and a default sentence under Section 307 of I.P.C and
Imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and a default sentence under
Section 302 of I.P.C by the impugned order of sentence dated 25th June, 2020.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has
examined 14 witnesses in support of the case. The statement of eye witnesses
P.W.2 and P.W. 5 that appellant was armed with lathi, stands contradicted by
the statement of other eye witness like P.W.4, who says that he did not find the
appellant at the place of occurrence. P.W.7 though had not gone to the place of
occurrence, but he also states that the appellant was not present at the place of
occurrence. The other injured witness P.W. 8 at Para-5 of his cross-
examination, has stated that when he reached at the place of occurrence, Lalan
Soni (deceased) was lying on the ground with a Bhala piercing him. P.W.11
during his cross-examination, has stated that he had not seen others, except
Ramnath Seth, who was carrying Bhala. P.W. 12, in her cross-examination, has
stated at Para-3 that she had seen Ramnath Seth with Bhala but not seen
anyone. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that injury report of
injured witness (P.W.8) has not been brought on record, though they are simple
in nature. It is submitted that P.W. 13, the Doctor, who conducted the post-
mortem examination upon the deceased Lalan Soni, found the following ante-
mortem injuries on his person:
1. Stitched Lacerated wound 2 ½" long on left parietal region.
2. Stitched Lacerated wound 2" long on left occipital region.
3. Abrasion ¾" x ½" near lateral end of right eyebrow.
4. Bleeding left ear.
The doctor though has opined that injuries were caused by hard
and blunt substance, but as per the prosecution case, the deceased was
assaulted by Bhala. He further submits that two other convicts namely Meena
Devi and Usha Devi have been enlarged on bail by suspending their sentence
in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 451 of 2020. Therefore, in the wake of such
inconsistent evidence even as to the presence of the appellant from the mouth
of prosecution witnesses, the finding of conviction upon the appellant is based
upon erroneous appreciation of the material evidence. Appellant was all along
on bail during trial and has been in custody since the date of conviction.
Therefore, appellant may be enlarged on bail by granting him the privilege of
suspension of sentence.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. He
submits that the appellant along with other co-convicts such as Raghunath
Seth, Meena Devi and Usha Devi were carrying lathi while convict, Ramnath
Seth was carrying Bhala as per the statement of P.W. 2, an eye witness. The
victim had sustained injuries on left parietal region by hard and blunt
substance, which caused fracture on the left side of occipital bone and
haemorrhage on the scalp. The death was caused by shock and haemorrhage
due to the above mentioned injuries as per the post-mortem report (Ext.-2)
adduced by the Doctor (P.W.13). P.W.9 has also stated that appellant was
carrying a Lathi. Therefore, appellant may not be enlarged on bail.
We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the
parties and taken note of the relevant materials relied upon by them from the
Lower Court Records.
On consideration of the materials on record and the submission of
the parties, it appears that the allegation of assault by lathi have been made
against the appellant and others such as Meena Devi, Usha Devi, Raghunath
Seth also, though the presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence has
not been supported by eye witness like P.W. 4. It further appears that as per the
statement of P.W. 8 the injured witness, the deceased was lying with Bhala
piercing him. The other two convicts ladies, Meena Devi and Usha Devi have
been enlarged on bail by a Coordinate bench of this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB)
No. 451 of 2020.
Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are
inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail by granting him the privilege of
suspension of sentence. Accordingly, appellant, named above, shall be released
on bail, during pendency of this appeal on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the
satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Garhwa in connection with
Sessions Trial No. 332/2014 with the condition that the appellant and his bailors
shall not change their address or mobile number without permission of the
learned Trial Court.
Consequently, I.A. No. . 6233 of 2020 stands disposed of.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J)
Jk/
