Jharkhand High Court
Mungi Yadav @ Mungeshwar Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 168 of 2021
1. Mungi Yadav @ Mungeshwar Yadav
2. Santosh Yadav --- --- Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
---
For the Appellant : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, A.P.P.
---
03/16.11.2021 Heard Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant no.2 Mr. P.P.N.
Roy assisted by learned counsel Mr. Arwind Kumar and learned A.P.P. Mr.
Vineet Kr. Vashistha on the prayer for suspension of sentence of the appellant
no.2 made through I.A. No.5662 of 2021.
2. Both the appellants stand convicted for the offences punishable
under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C. vide impugned judgment of conviction
dated 06.07.2021 passed in Sessions Trial No. 39 of 2017 by the learned court
of Additional Sessions Judge-V, Chatra and have been sentenced to undergo
life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and a default sentence each vide
impugned order of sentence dated 08.07.2021.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that though the
informant father (P.W.6) has alleged that several named persons including
these two appellants accosted him and his son (deceased) while returning
from Huntergunj after taking diesel and the accused persons killed his son by
pressing his neck and took away Rs.34,000/- from his pocket, but the
statement of P.W.6 while deposing does not inspire credibility that he was
accompanying the deceased or was an eye-witness since he has not sustained
any injury. Though in his deposition he says that his legs and hands were tied
and that the family members rescued him later on, but P.W.1 sister of the
deceased and other prosecution witnesses such as P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 all
have stated that they saw the dead body in the morning. It is submitted that
P.W.1 is not an eye-witness as also stated that there was no dispute or previous
enmity with the appellant no.2 Santosh Yadav. The Police has chargesheeted
only these two accused persons, though the allegation was against 11 named
persons in the Fardbeyan. Though the Doctor who conducted post-mortem on
11th June 2016 on the body of the deceased, has opined as P.W.7 that death
was caused due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation and there were 6
antemortem injuries on the body but there are no witnesses to corroborate the
involvement of this appellant in the alleged offence. The appellant no.2 has
remained in custody since 04th October 2016 i.e. more than 5 years by now.
Therefore, he may be enlarged on bail by suspending his sentence.
4. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer. He submits that statement
of P.W.6 father and the informant as an eye-witness cannot be doubted since
he was accompanying the deceased. The deceased was throttled to death and
had also received 6 other injuries as a result of the assault by iron rod and
Lathi by the accused persons as corroborated by the Doctor (P.W.7) who has
adduced the post-mortem report (Ext.1). Therefore, the appellant no.2 may
not be enlarged on bail.
5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and taken note of the materials relied upon by them from the lower
court records including the period of custody undergone by the appellant.
6. It appears from the statement of P.W.1 sister of the deceased that
there was no preexisting enmity with the appellant no.2 herein and that
prosecution witnesses no.1 and 2 who are sister and uncle of the deceased,
have seen the dead body on the next morning like the other prosecution
witnesses no. 3 and 4. It further appears that there are no injuries on the body
of the informant as alleged in the F.I.R. though he claims to be accompanying
the deceased and was also assaulted.
7. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances
noted above and the period of custody of more than 5 years undergone by the
appellant no.2, we are inclined to grant the privilege of suspension of sentence
to the appellant during pendency of the appeal. Appellant no.2 is directed to
be released on bail 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-V, Chatra in connection with Sessions Trial
No. 39 of 2017 with the condition that the appellant as well as his bailors shall
not change their addresses and mobile numbers, if any, without prior
permission of the learned trial court and shall submit Aadhar Cards at the time
of his release. I.A. No.5662/2021 stands disposed of.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J)
Shamim/
