Jharkhand High Court
Govind Jamuda vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 198 of 2018
Govind Jamuda --- --- Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navneet Kumar
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Mahesh Kr. Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Pandey, A.P.P.
---
08/08.10.2021 Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha has
renewed the prayer for suspension of sentence of this appellant made through
I.A. No.4691/2021.
Sole appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under
Sections 302 and 201 of the I.P.C. vide impugned judgment of conviction
dated 19.12.2017 passed in S.T. Case No.225 of 2016 by the learned court of
Additional Sessions Judge-V, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur and has been
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.20,000/- and a
default sentence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and further sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and a
default sentence under Section 201 of the I.P.C. vide impugned order of
sentence dated 20.12.2017.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that earlier the prayer
for bail of this appellant was rejected vide order dated 19th June 2018 taking
note of the fact that there is no eye-witness to the occurrence while the dead
body of the deceased was found in the house of the appellant. It is submitted
that the appellant's wife was in illicit relation with some other person which
has come in the evidence of the prosecution witness. The appellant has been
falsely implicated in this case so that the wife P.W.3 shall carry on illegal
relationship. It is submitted that it is unconscionable that the child aged 4
years would be killed by this appellant for no motive or reason. Appellant has
been in custody since 2nd February 2016 i.e. about 5 years and 8 months.
Therefore, he may be enlarged on bail by suspending his sentence.
Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer. He submits that the
prosecution evidence is cogent and consistent. P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 all
have consistently stated that the boy went missing and later on his dead body
was found in the house of the appellant with blood stains all around.
Appellant has not been able to offer any explanation for the unnatural death of
the boy in his own house. Therefore, his prayer for bail was earlier rejected
and he has not completed sufficient custody.
Having considered the facts and circumstances and the materials
relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties from lower court records
including the period of custody undergone by the appellant, we are not
inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail at this stage. I.A. No.4691 of 2021 is
accordingly rejected.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Shamim/
