Jharkhand High Court
Mungi Yadav @ Mungeshwar Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 29 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal 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
Through Video Conferencing
For the Appellant : Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashishta, A.P.P.
04/29.11.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Arwind Kumar and
Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashishta, learned A.P.P. on the prayer for suspension of
sentence made by the appellant no.1 through I.A. No. 6502 of 2021.
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/- each and a default
sentence each vide impugned order of sentence dated 08.07.2021.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the present case of
appellant no.1 Mungi Yadav @ Mungeshwar Yadav is similar as that of
appellant no. 2 Santosh Yadav, who has been enlarged on bail by
suspending his sentence by this Court vide order dated 16.11.2021. It is
submitted that this Court has taken note of the fact that P.W.1 sister of the
deceased has stated that there was no pre-existing enmity with the
appellant no.2 herein. P.W.1 and P.W.2 i.e., sister and uncle of the
deceased have stated that they had seen the dead body in the next morning
like the other prosecution witnesses P.W.3 and P.W.4. It has also been
taken note of that there was no injury on the body of the informant as
written in the F.I.R. though he claimed to be accompanying the deceased
and was also assaulted. Informant (P.W.6) the father of the deceased had
alleged that while returning from Huntergunj with his son after taking
diesel, accused persons had accosted both of them and had killed his son
by pressing his neck and took away Rs. 34,000/- from his pocket. Though
in his deposition P.W.6 has stated that his legs and hands were tied and
that the family members rescued him later on, however, P.W1 sister of the
deceased and other witnesses such as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and P.W.4, all have
stated that they saw the dead body in the morning. They have not
supported the theory put forth by the informant in the F.I.R that he was
rescued by other family members. Considering the total period of custody
of 5 years undergone by the appellant no.2, he has been enlarged on bail.
Therefore, appellant No.1, who stands on similar footing and undergone
the same period of custody of 5 years since 04.10.2016, may also be
released on bail by suspending his sentence.
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 sustained 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). He, however, has not
been able to distinguish the case of appellant no. 1 and 2 on material
terms.
We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the
parties and taken note of the materials relied upon by them from the lower
court record including the period of custody undergone by the appellant
no.1. On consideration of totality of facts and circumstances noted above
and that on similar material evidence prayer for suspension of sentence of
appellant no.2 has been allowed by this Court also taking into account the
same period of custody undergone as the present appellant no.1, we are
inclined to grant the privilege of suspension of sentence to the appellant
no.1.
Accordingly, the appellant no.1, named above, during the
pendency of this appeal, shall be enlarged 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 he and his bailors shall not change their address or
mobile number without permission of the learned Trial Court and that
appellant as well as his bailors would also submit the Aadhar Card
before the court below at the time of furnishing bail bonds.
I.A. No. 6502 of 2021stands allowed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
A.Mohanty (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
