Jharkhand High Court
Dinesh Kumar @ Diggal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 35 of 2021
Dinesh Kumar @ Diggal .... Appellant
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. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, A.P.P
---
05/ 09.09.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda and
Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the
prayer for suspension of sentence made by this appellant through I.A. No. 4238 of
2021.
The sole appellant stands convicted for the offence under sections
302/34 of I.P.C and section 27 of Arms Act, by the impugned judgment dated
20.01.2021 rendered in Session Trial No. 161/2017 (S) by the Court of learned
Sessions Judge, Bokaro and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life under
sections 302/34 of I.P.C with a fine of Rs. 15,000/- and default sentence and
further sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years under section 27 of Arms Act with
a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and default sentence, vide impugned order of sentence dated
25.01.2021.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment in the case
of the appellant was delivered separately as he had absconded on the date of the
judgment in the same Sessions Trial No. 161 of 2017, wherein other accused
persons, namely, Prem Ram @ Mukesh Ram, Anup Kumar and Lelu Sharma @
Rahul Sharma were convicted on 25th November, 2019 by the Court of learned
District & Sessions Judge, Bokaro on the basis of same evidence. He submits that
as per the findings rendered in the present appeal, which is based on same
evidence, the deceased was shot only by the co-accused, Brij Kishore Singh which
was missed fire and thereafter accused, Prem Ram shot him on abdomen leading
to his death during course of treatment. The injuries have been corroborated by
doctor (P.W.1), who conducted the post-mortem on the deceased as per Ext. -1. It
is submitted that the present appellant has been convicted with the aid of Section
34 of I.P.C. It is further submitted that in the other Sessions Trial no. 161 of 2017,
two other co-convicts, namely, Lelu Sharma @ Rahul Sharma and Anup Kumar,
who were also convicted with the aid of Section 34 of I.P.C, have been granted
bail by a Coordinate bench of this Court vide orders dated 26th August, 2020 and
2nd July, 2020 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos. 74 of 2020 and 47 of 2020
respectively (Annexure- 2 Series to the I.A) by suspending their sentence during
pendency of the appeal. It is submitted that those appellants have been enlarged
on bail on the grounds that there was direct and specific allegation against the
other co-accused to have assaulted the deceased by firearm, which proved fatal.
Appellant is in custody since the date of his conviction as he was all along on bail
during trial. Therefore, on similar grounds appellant may be granted privilege of
suspension of sentence as there is no direct evidence against him also, who has
been convicted with the aid of Section 34 of I.P.C
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer.
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
and also the instances of other co-convicts in Sessions Trial no. 161 of 2017 out of
split up record, of which the present impugned judgment has been delivered. It
appears on consideration of the materials on record that the deceased was shot by
accused, Brij Kishore Singh, which missed fire and thereafter the accused, Prem
Ram shot him on abdomen leading to his death during course of treatment.
Petitioner's case is similarly situated to that of other co-accused, Lelu Sharma @
Rahul Sharma and Anup Kumar referred to above. Taking into consideration the
facts and circumstances of the case, 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 Sessions Judge,
Bokaro in connection with Session Trial No. 161/2017 (S) with the condition that
the appellant and his bailors shall not change their address or mobile number
without permission of the learned Trial Court.
I.A. No. 4238 of 2021 stands allowed.
Let the records of the instant case be tagged along with Cr. Appeal (DB)
Nos. 74 of 2020 and 47 of 2020.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J)
Jk/
