Jharkhand High Court
Jitendra Singh @ Jitendra Kumar ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 114 of 2021
Jitendra Singh @ Jitendra Kumar Singh --- --- 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 : Mr. Vijay Shankar Prasad, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Suraj Verma, A.P.P.
---
05/16.11.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Vijay Shankar
Prasad and learned A.P.P. Mr. Suraj Verma on the prayer for suspension of
sentence of the appellant made through I.A. No.3048 of 2021.
2. Sole appellant stands convicted for the offences punishable
under Section 302 of the I.P.C. while three other accused have been acquitted
of the charges vide impugned judgment of conviction dated 23.03.2021
passed in Sessions Trial No. 294 of 2016 by the learned court of Additional
Sessions Judge-II, Palamau and the appellant has been sentenced to undergo
life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and a default sentence vide
impugned order of sentence dated 26.03.2021.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the informant
brother of the deceased (P.W.2) and the sister-in-law (P.W.1) have made out a
totally new case during deposition which was not alleged in the Fardbeyan of
the informant. The F.I.R. was against unknown persons and there was no
mention of any quarrel or fight between the deceased and the four accused
persons who faced trial. Though the cause of death has been shown due to
shock and hemorrhage by firearm injury in the skull of the deceased, but the
appellant has been convicted only under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and there is
no conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act, though the accused persons
were chargesheeted for the said offence also. It is submitted that P.W.5 to 7
have turned hostile. P.W.9 and 10 brothers of the deceased have not seen the
occurrence as they were not in the house. Though the Investigating Officer
(P.W.12) says that he recorded the confessional statement of the appellant but
the confessional statement has not been exhibited to take the aid of Section 27
of the Evidence Act. In substance, there is no material to convict the
appellant. None of the prosecution witnesses have seen the occurrence. At the
best, from the deposition of P.W.1 and 2 which is a complete improvement
upon the original prosecution case, the appellant was alleged to have followed
the deceased after a quarrel in the night when he had gone out to relieve
himself, but the body was found in the morning on the railway track with
certain lacerated wounds and other injuries as also firearm injury in his skull.
Therefore, the appellant may be enlarged on bail by suspending his sentence
as there is no material to sustain the conviction.
4. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer. He submits that the
prosecution witness no.1 and 2 have categorically stated during trial that the
appellant had followed the deceased soon after the quarrel between the
deceased and the four accused persons and the appellant and other accused
persons were the agnates and there was a dispute regarding contribution
towards last rite ceremony of the grandfather of the deceased and the
informant. Appellant has remained in custody only since his conviction.
Therefore, he may not be enlarged on bail.
5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and taken note of the materials on record relied upon by them from the
lower court records.
6. On consideration of the materials on record it appears that there
are no eye-witnesses to the occurrence; the informant in his Fardbeyan had
not made any allegation of quarrel between the deceased and the four accused
persons including the appellant and that no such confession of the appellant
has been brought on record by the prosecution as stated by the Investigating
Officer (P.W.12). We are, therefore, satisfied that the appellant has made out a
case for suspension of sentence during pendency of the appeal. Accordingly,
appellant 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-II, Palamau in
connection with Sessions Trial No. 294 of 2016 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.3048/2021 stands
disposed of.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J)
Shamim/
