Jharkhand High Court
Prakash Bage vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1221 of 2018
1. Prakash Bage
2. Sudhir Bage ....Appellants
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 Appellants : Mr. A.K.Kashyap, Senior Advocate
For the State : Mr. Praveen Kumar Appu, A.P.P.
---
06/24.07.2021 Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant, Mr. A.K.Kashyap
and Mr. Praveen Kumar Appu, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State on the prayer for suspension of sentence made on behalf of appellant no. 2
through I.A. No. 2445 of 2021.
Both the appellants stand convicted for the offence punishable
under Sections 302/34 of I.P.C by the impugned judgment dated 23.04.2018
passed in Sessions Trial No. 402 of 2015 by the Court of learned District &
Additional Sessions Judge-V, Gumla and have been sentenced to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and a default
sentence each by the impugned order of sentence dated 27.04.2018.
Learned senior counsel for the appellant has primarily contended
that the prosecution story as made out in the Fardbeyan of P.W. 2, the
informant of this case and daughter of the deceased is exaggerated version of
the occurrence, if at all the testimony of the prosecution witness, P.W. 1, elder
sister of informant (claiming herself to be an eye witness) and P.W. 2,
informant herself is compared to the testimony of the doctor (P.W.7), who
conducted the post-mortem (Ext.-3) upon the deceased. It is submitted that the
deceased suffered three chopped wounds over the right side of head from
above down wards and two chopped wounds over right scapular region, as
one chopped wound over back side of thigh of right side and one chopped
wound over back left leg. P.W.7, in his cross-examination, has stated that all
the five injuries on the person of the deceased may be inflicted by the same
weapon. Appellant no. 1, Prakash Bage is alleged to have inflicted injuries by
a Dauli (sort of axe). The informant alleged that this appellant no. 2 assaulted
her father by a plough tool (Hull) on his head, as a result of which, he fell
down and thereafter Prakash Bage, appellant no. 1 assaulted him with Dauli. It
is submitted that none of the ante-mortem injuries are caused by an
object like plough tool as there are no pointed injuries on the body of the
deceased, whereas all other injuries are chopped wounds which P.W. 7 has
stated as may be inflicted by the same weapon. As such, neither are the
injuries alleged against the appellant no. 2 corroborated by the medical
evidence, nor the ingredient of common intention to cause death of the father
of the informant by this appellant no. 2 has been established on the weight of
the prosecution evidence. Carrying of a plough tool in the field that too in the
month of August during paddy season, is a normal thing regarding which no
common intention to cause murder can be attributed. Therefore, appellant no.
2 may be enlarged on bail as he has been in custody since 8th October, 2015
i.e., about two and half months less than six years.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. He
submits that the prosecution story as made out in the Fardbeyan is
corroborated by eye witnesses like P.W. 1 and the informant herself. The
deceased suffered several injuries on his head, as would be evident from the
oral testimony of eyewitnesses which suggest that there was multiple assault
by more than one person upon the deceased. The informant is also an injured
witness as per the report of doctor (P.W.8), who has adduced injury report
(Ext.-4) of the informant. As such, appellant does not deserve to 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 as also the period of custody undergone by this appellant no. 2.
It appears from the post-mortem report (Ext.3) and the deposition of doctor
(P.W.7) that all the ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased were
chopped wounds of various sizes which according to the Doctor may have
been inflicted by the same weapon i.e. sharp cutting weapon like a Dauli or
axe, whereas the prosecution has alleged assault by the appellant no. 2 by a
plough tool. Appellant no. 1 is stated to be carrying a Dauli i.e. sharp cutting
weapon.
Having regard to the totality facts and circumstances, noted above and
that the appellant no. 2 has been in custody since 8th October, 2015, we are
inclined to enlarge the appellant no. 2 on bail by suspending his sentence.
Accordingly, appellant no. 2, namely, Sudhir Bage 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 District & Additional Sessions Judge-V, Gumla in
connection with Sessions Trial No. 402 of 2015 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. 2445 of 2021 stands disposed of.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J)
Jk/
