Jharkhand High Court
Kishore Kachhap vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 112 of 2020
Kishore Kachhap --- --- 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. Kumar Vaibhav, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P.
06/27.09.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Kumar Vaibhav and
Mr. Saket Kumar, learned A.P.P. on the prayer for suspension of sentence
made by the appellant through I.A. No. 4229 of 2021.
The sole appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 302 of the I.P.C by the impugned judgment dated
05.07.2018 passed in Sessions Trial Case No. 320 of 2014 by the court of
learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XI, Ranchi and has been
sentenced to undergo R.I. for life with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and a default
sentence by the impugned order of sentence dated 06.07.2018.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the findings
recorded by the learned Trial Court is based on unreliable evidence
produced by the prosecution. The informant-P.W.3, sister of the deceased,
has in her fardbeyan alleged that his younger brother had gone to the
appellant's home on 08.01.2014 and on 09.01.2014, the appellant at 5.30
a.m. under the influence of liquor, gave repeated tangi blow upon the
deceased as a result of which, her brother died. The appellant also
confessed to have kept the tangi. It is submitted that P.W.1 and P.W.2 have
not seen the occurrence. P.W.1 is the sister-in-law (bhabhi) of the
deceased; P.W.2 is the elder brother of the deceased, who in his cross
examination has stated that he has not seen anything. P.W.3 has stated that
she got information from the neighbor that his brother has been assaulted
by the appellant and got injured. On getting this information the elder
brother P.W.2 went to the place of occurrence and while taking the victim
to the hospital, he passed away. She has stated that the appellant on being
asked, told her that he was under the influence of alcohol while assaulting
the victim. In her cross examination, she has stated that the appellant is
not in fit state of mind. P.W.3 informant has also stated that the deceased
and the appellant were not on inimical terms. She has signed upon the
seizure list of the Axe seized in her presence but she has also not seen the
occurrence. P.W.5, doctor has found three abrasions and 6 incised wound
caused by sharp cutting weapon and the cause of death was due to the
grievous injury caused by such weapon. He has not stated what type of
weapon was used. P.W.6 is another brother of the deceased. He has stated
that the appellant told him that he had assaulted the deceased by tangi and
injured him. P.W.7 says that incidence was reported by the informant
P.W.3. P.W.8, husband of the informant is also a hearsay witness who has
stated that he heard that the appellant had killed the deceased by
assaulting with tangi. It is submitted that the Investigating Officer has not
been examined in this case and there is a vital 4 hour gap in reporting the
incidence in the police station on 10.00 a.m. though the place of
occurrence is only 6 km from the police station. It is submitted that there
is no motive to the crime and moreover the deceased and the appellant
were related as maternal uncle and nephew. Appellant is in custody since
10.01.2014 i.e., the next date of the occurrence and by now he has
undergone custody of 7 years 8 months and 20 days approximately.
Therefore, he may be enlarged on bail by suspending his sentence.
Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer. He submits that the
prosecution witnesses such as P.W.3, P.W.4, and P.W.6, all have
corroborated to the first information report lodged by the informant only 4
hours after the incidence, which finds support from the medical evidence
adduced by the doctor P.W.5. 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 record including the period of custody undergone by the appellant.
Having regard to the materials placed on record, it appears that informant
or the other prosecution witnesses are not eye witness to the occurrence.
As per the informant, the victim had himself gone to the house of the
appellant on 08.01.2014 and on the next morning at 05.30 a.m., appellant
under the influence of the liquor assaulted the victim, though there was no
inimical term between them. Appellant is in custody since 10.01.2014 i.e.,
7 years and 9 months approximately. Therefore, we are inclined to grant
the privilege of suspension of sentence to the appellant.
Accordingly, the appellant, 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 Judicial Commissioner-XI,
Ranchi in connection with Sessions Trial Case No. 320 of 2014 with the
condition that he and his bailors shall not change their address or mobile
number without permission of the learned Trial Court.
I.A. No. 4229 of 2021 stands allowed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
A.Mohanty
