Jharkhand High Court
Guwasol Murmu @ Kaleshwar Murmu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1385 of 2017
Guwasol Murmu @ Kaleshwar Murmu ....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. Sudhansu Kumar Deo, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, A.P.P.
---
06/24.07.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Sudhansu Kumar Deo and
Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the
prayer for suspension of sentence made by this appellant through I.A. No. 2784
of 2021.
Appellant along with three others stand convicted for the offence
punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 302 of I.P.C by the impugned judgment
dated 23.05.2017 passed in Sessions Trial No. 21 of 2016 by the Court of
learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Deoghar and all the convicts have been
sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year under Section 147 of
I.P.C; R.I. for 2 years under Section 148 of I.P.C and Rigorous Imprisonment for
life with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and a default sentence each under Section
302 of I.P.C by the impugned order of sentence dated 27.05.2017.
Earlier, the prayer for suspension made by this appellant through I.A.
No. 5962 of 2019 was dismissed as not pressed by order dated 31 st July, 2019.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution story
projected by the informant-husband (P.W.4) in his Fardbeyan recorded on 10 th
July, 2015 indicate that the occurrence was seen by the informant, Surendra
Tudu and Parmeshwar Murmu, (P.Ws. 1 & 2). P.W.1 in his cross-examination
at Para-7 has stated that when he and the informant went towards the field after
half an hour, they saw the deceased lying in water. Thereafter other villagers,
Parmeshwar Murmu, P.W.2, Rasik Soren, Babujan Soran, Anadhan Soren and
Shivlal Tudu had reached the place of occurrence. No other persons were
present there. It is submitted that P.W.4, informant has stated, in his cross-
examination at Para-14, that Parmeshwar Murmu, (P.W.2), Surendra Tuddu
(P.W.1) and informant together had gone towards the field. He further states
that he and these two prosecution witnesses had reached the place of
occurrence after the incidence, through he has stated in his Fardbeyan that
when they had reached the place of occurrence, these accused persons indulged
in fisticuffs with the informant and then fled away. It is submitted that the
version of P.W. 4 and P.W. 1 as also P.W. 2 conveyed a contrary picture than
what was projected in the Fardbeyan. They were not the eye witnesses to the
occurrence. It is also pointed out from the statement of P.W. 1 at Para-7 that
the plot, on which they had gone to see the wife of the informant (deceased)
was about two kilometres from his in-laws' place. It is submitted that other co-
convicts, namely, Parwati Manhiyan, Panku Hansda and Nirmal Soren have
been granted bail during pendency of appeal in Cr. Appeal(D.B) No. 1100 of
2017 by orders passed on I.A. No. 85553 of 2017 and I.A. No. 9661 of 2017 by
Coordinate Bench of this Court. Appellant is aged about 64 years and has been
in custody since 11th July, 2015 i.e. next day of occurrence for more than six
years by now. Therefore, appellant may be enlarged on bail.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. He
submits that the statement of the informant and P.W. 1 regarding the nature of
assault stands corroborated from the evidence of the Doctor (P.W. 9), who has
adduced the post-mortem report as Ext.-10. The deceased suffered injuries of
gutter fracture of scull, as would appear from the case of the informant since
accused persons had assaulted his wife with lathi, kudal etc. Therefore, he may
not be enlarged on bail by suspending his sentence.
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, including the period of custody undergone by this
appellant and that the other co-convicts have been granted bail by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court.
Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are
inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail by suspending his 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
learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Deoghar in connection with Sessions
Trial No. 21 of 2016 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. 2784 of 2021 stands disposed of.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J)
Jk/
