Jharkhand High Court
Suresh Hansda vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1402 of 2018
Suresh Hansda --- --- 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. Vishal Kr. Trivedi, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar, A.P.P.
---
06/22.09.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Vishal Kr. Trivedi
and learned A.P.P. Mr. Ashok Kumar on the prayer for suspension of sentence
of this appellant made through I.A. No.3291 of 2021.
2. Sole appellant stands convicted for the offences punishable
under Sections 302 and 201 of the I.P.C. vide impugned judgment dated
19.09.2018 passed in S.T. Case No.56/2014 by the court of learned Additional
Sessions Judge-III, Hazaribagh and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 302 of the
I.P.C. and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years
with a fine of Rs.3,000/- under Section 201 of the I.P.C and a default sentence
vide impugned order of sentence dated 24.09.2018.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the genesis of the
prosecution case is the Fardbeyan recorded by brother of the
deceased/informant (P.W.2) who claims to have received information from the
appellant that his sister had drowned in the river. It was alleged that the
appellant had gone with his wife/deceased and his four months daughter on a
motorcycle to Gomia for visiting the fair on 15.10.2013. It is submitted that
from the materials brought on record during trial, it is clear that none of the
prosecution witnesses i.e. P.W.2 informant, P.W.4 mother, P.W.1 and 3 other
two brothers of the deceased have seen the appellant taking the deceased and
his daughter to a fair in Gomia and thereafter throwing them in Konar Dam
from where the body was recovered on 17th October 2013. In fact, P.W.1
during deposition has stated that the appellant had called Kartik Hansda of his
village at 2.00 A.M. in the night and stated that certain miscreants had come
and assaulted him and taken away his wife and his 4 months old daughter. It is
submitted that two doctors who have conducted the post-mortem on the dead
bodies of the victims on 17th October 2013 have found that the 4 months old
child died due to asphyxia on account of drowning while the appellant's wife
died due to antemortem injuries caused by hard and blunt substance. It is
submitted that no incriminating evidence has been found at the place of
occurrence by the Investigating Officer near Konar Dam and not stated about
any such incriminating material at the house of the appellant. The prosecution
evidence shows that the information of occurrence was supplied by the
appellant about taking away of his wife (deceased) and his 4 months baby by
miscreants in the night after assaulting him. He submitted that the appellant
has been in custody since 17th October 2013 i.e. about 8 years by now and
therefore, he may be enlarged on bail by suspending his sentence.
4. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the
appellant used to quarrel with his wife since he wanted to remarry and the
post-mortem report shows that she was done to death due to antemortem
injuries caused by hard and blunt substance and thereafter the body was
thrown in the Konar Dam from where it was recovered on 17.10.2013 along
with the minor 4 months old child. Therefore, appellant 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 including the period of custody undergone by the
appellant.
6. On consideration of the submissions of the parties and the
materials on record, it appears that as per the P.W.1 brother of deceased lady,
the appellant had himself informed the co-villager of P.W.1 at 2.00 A.M. in
the night of the incidence about the occurrence. None of the prosecution
witnesses are ocular witnesses to the taking of the victim and the 4 months
old child for a fair to Gomia by the appellant on 15th October 2013.
7. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, we are inclined to
grant the privilege of suspension of sentence to the appellant during pendency
of the appeal since he has remained in custody for about 8 years by now.
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-III, Hazaribagh in
connection with S.T. No. 56/2014 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. I.A. No. 3291 of 2021
stands disposed of.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J)
Shamim/
