Bachhan Mahli vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 3788 Jhar

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                          Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 83 of 2021
            Bachhan Mahli                                                  ....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. Jorong Jedan Sanga, Advocate
            For the State             : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P
                                             ---

05/05.10.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Jorong Jedan Sanga and learned A.P.P, Mrs. Vandana Bharti on the prayer for suspension of sentence made by this appellant through I.A. No. 5410 of 2021.

This appellant along with Arjun Mahli stands convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 341/34, 326/34, 307/34 of the I.P.C. read with Sections 3 / 4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999 vide impugned judgment of conviction dated 22.02.2021 passed in Sessions Trial Case No. 125/2017 by the learned court of Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega and both of them have been sentenced vide impugned order of sentence dated 27.02.2021 in the following manner:-

           Sl. Offence U/s                                      Sentence
           No.
                                          Imprisonment Fine                   Default
           1.    Sec. 341/34 of I.P.C     S.I. for 01          ......                   ....
                                          (one) month
           2.    Sec. 326/334 of I.P.C    R.I for 10 Rs. 5000/- (Rs.          R.I for 06 (six)
                                          (ten) years    Five      thousand   months
                                                         only)
           3.    Sec. 307/34 of I.P.C     R.I for 10 Rs. 10000/- (Rs.         R.I for 01 (one)
                                          (ten) years    Ten       thousand   year
                                                         only)
           4.    Sec. 3 of the Prevention R.I for 03            ....                    .....
                 of    Witch      (Daain) (three) months
                 Practices Act, 1999
           5.    Sec. 4 of the Prevention R.I for 06            ....                    .....
                 of    Witch      (Daain) (six) months
                 Practices Act, 1999

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the prosecution case and the statement of the injured victim and the informant (P.W.1), the assault by Tangi was made by the other co-convict, Arjun Mahli. The medical evidence also corroborates the nature of assault alleged against the co-convict, Arjun Mahli. As per the statement of the victim (P.W.1) specifically in paragraph 8 of her cross- examination, Arjun Mahli had snatched the Tangi from the hands of this appellant and then assaulted. There was no intention on the part of this appellant to make any assault. Moreover, Tangi is a usual article or weapon which is carried by the

villagers in the remote tribal area. As such, no intention can be attributed simply by carrying the article in his hand to cause injuries upon the victim. P.W.5 has, in her deposition, made categorical statement that Arjun Mahli assaulted the victim twice on the head and once in ribs and then fled away. She does not make any mention of any assault by this appellant. This appellant is in custody since 27.02.2021 and earlier during trial from 13th June, 2017 upto 06.12.2017. As such, appellant may be enlarged on bail by suspending his sentence since the case of the appellant is clearly distinguishable from that of Arjun Mahli, whose prayer for suspension of sentence was rejected by this court by order dated 21.09.2021 in Cr.Appeal (DB) No. 85 of 2021.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the prayer. She submits that both Arjun Mahli and this appellant had gone to the house of the victim on suspicion of her practicing witchcraft. Appellant was carrying a Tangi which is weapon of assault used by the co-convict, Arjun Mahli. Therefore, common intention of both the appellant is made out. Therefore, appellant may not be enlarged on bail.

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 Records. On consideration of the materials on record, it appears that the assault by Tangi was made by the co-convict, Arjun Mahli, who snatched Tangi from the hands of this appellant. No overt-act of any assault has been attributed to this appellant.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances, we are inclined to grant bail to the appellant by suspending his sentence during pendency of this appeal. Accordingly, appellant, above-named, shall be released on bail, during the 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, Simdega in connection with Sessions Trial No. 125/2017 with the condition that appellant and his bailors shall not change their address or mobile number without permission of the learned Trial Court. Appellant and their bailors shall also furnish their photo copy of Aadhar Card before the Trial Court.

I.A. No. 5410 of 2021 stands allowed.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J) Jk/