Jharkhand High Court
Sheodayal Ganjhu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 588 of 2019
Sheodayal Ganjhu --- --- Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
---
For the Appellant: M/s R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate, Ankit Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, A. P.P
---
04 / 03.11.2021 Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P Mr.
Abhay Kumar Tiwari on the prayer for suspension of sentence of this appellant
made through I.A. No. 3569/ 2021.
2. The sole appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under
Part-II of section 299 read with section 304 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code and
section 3 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999 by the
impugned judgment dated 28.05.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No. 118/2013 by
the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat (Bokaro)
and has been sentenced to undergo R.I for life with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and
default sentence under Part-II of section 299 read with section 304 Part-I of the
Indian Penal Code and further sentenced to undergo S.I for three months with a
fine of Rs. 500/- under section 3 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices
Act, 1999 by the impugned order of sentence dated 01.06.2019.
3. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has pressed the prayer for
suspension of sentence of this appellant primarily on the ground that he has
served custody from 15th October 2012 i.e. more than nine years till date. It is
submitted that the appellant has been convicted on the finding that one fatal
blow was inflicted on the deceased by 'Sabal' by this appellant. It is further
submitted that there are no chances of appeal being taken up for hearing at an
early date. Therefore, considering the period of custody undergone by the
appellant till date, he may be enlarged on bail by suspending his sentence.
4 Learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that PW-16, an
eyewitness, has supported the allegation of infliction of fatal blow on the head
of the deceased and that too on suspicion of practicing witchcraft. Medical
evidence of the doctor (PW-11) corroborates the oral testimony of PW-16.
5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties
and taken note of the material relied upon by them from the lower court records
including the period of custody undergone by the appellant. Having regard to
the facts and circumstances noted above and in particular the period of custody
undergone by this appellant since 15.10.2012 i.e. more than nine years till date,
we are inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail by suspending his sentence
during pendency of this appeal. Accordingly, Appellant Sheodayal Ganjhu
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-I, Bermo
at Tenughat (Bokaro) in Sessions Trial No. 118/2013 with the condition that the
appellant and his bailors shall not change their address or mobile nos. without
permission of the learned Trial Court and Appellant and his bailors shall also
furnish their Aadhar Card before the learned Trial Court at the time of his
release. I.A. No. 3569/2021 stands allowed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J)
Ranjeet/
