Pankaj Kumar Sahu vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 463 Jhar

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)

                    Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1173 of 2018

Pankaj Kumar Sahu, son of Sri Ganesh Sahu, r/o Village, PO and PS
Pithoria, District Ranchi.                           ......Appellant

                                        Versus
The State of Jharkhand                                             ... Respondent
                          ---------------

(Through V.C)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA

For the Appellant : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate Ms. Aprajita Bhardwaj, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Priya Shreshtha, Spl.PP For the Informant : Mr. Awanish Shekhar, Advocate

---------------

Order No. 09/ Dated: 15th February 2022

I.A. No. 4418 of 2020 This application has been filed by Pankaj Kumar Sahu who is the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1173 of 2018.

2. The appellant suffered sentence of RI for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code with a default stipulation to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

3. On 19th December 2018, the following order was passed by this Court:

" I.A. No. 9740 of 2018 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State, as also learned counsel for the informant on the interlocutory application filed by the appellant for granting bail during the pendency of the appeal.

The appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, on the allegation that he had assaulted and injured the informant by firearm.

The impugned Judgment shows that in the evidence of the informant, who has been examined as P.W.-3, it has come that even after this occurrence, again on 26.1.2017, the appellant assaulted and injured the informant and his wife by firearm.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the informant that for the said occurrence, S.T. No.420 of 2017 is pending in

the Court below, which is in the final stage of disposal and the arguments are going on.

In the facts of this case, since there is repeated allegation against the appellant, we are not inclined to release the appellant on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail stands rejected.

The aforesaid interlocutory application stands dismissed.

The appellant however, is given the liberty to renew his prayer for bail after disposal of S.T. No.420 of 2017."

4. On 29th March 2019, the following order was passed by this Court:

" I.A. No. 2271 of 2019 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State on the interlocutory application filed by the appellant for granting bail during the pendency of the appeal.

The application has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, on the allegation that he had assaulted and injured the informant by firearm.

The appellant had earlier filed his bail application in I.A. No. 9740 of 2018, in which, it transpired that even after the present occurrence, he had assaulted and injured the informant and his wife by firearm, for which another S.T. No. 420 of 2017 was pending in the Court below. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the appellant was rejected, giving him liberty to renew his prayer for bail after disposal of S.T. No. 420 of 2017.

Learned counsel has accordingly renewed the prayer for bail, but it is an admitted fact that in S.T. No. 420 of 2017 also, the appellant has been convicted by the Trial Court below.

As such, the prayer for bail stands rejected. The aforesaid interlocutory application stands dismissed."

5. From the aforesaid orders, we gather that the previous applications for suspension of sentence were dismissed on the ground that another criminal case was lodged against the appellant after the institution of the present case. We are of the opinion that this Court can still examine the matter to satisfy itself whether a prima-facie case for suspension of sentence is made out.

6. In Sessions Trial No. 339 of 2017 which was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of Shivbrat Sahu, the injured, Pithoria PS Case No. 134 of 2016 was registered on 31 st December 2016 against Pankaj Kumar Sahu and Nitesh Gope for the offences under section 307/34 of the

Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act.

7. In the sessions trial, Nitesh Gope was acquitted of the aforesaid charges on the ground that the evidence laid by the prosecution was not sufficient to establish his complicity in the crime.

8. The learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII-cum- Special Judge, CBI-(AHD)-cum-Spl. Court (CAW), Ranchi has observed that only Pankaj Kumar Sahu was seen with a pistol at the shop of the informant. The learned trial Judge has held that C.D of C.C.T.V. footage and the evidence of the doctor inspire confidence and appear to be believable.

9. The aforesaid finding by the learned trial Judge has been challenged by the appellant.

10. Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned Senior counsel for the applicant, submits that evidence tendered by the PW1 and PW3, who is the informant in this case, in the face of C.C.T.V. footage does not inspire confidence and, prima-facie, would indicate that on account of previous animosity the informant has implicated the appellant.

11. Mrs. Priya Shreshtha, the learned Special PP, has however submitted that there are ample materials on record to establish identity of the appellant who was known to the informant.

12. Mr. Awanish Shekhar, the learned counsel for the informant, submits that the time span of the occurrence was such that it gave sufficient opportunity to the informant to identify the assailant.

13. In Sessions Trial No. 339 of 2017, the prosecution examined seven witnesses to establish the aforesaid charges framed against the accused. The fardbeyan of the informant was recorded at 7:20 PM on 31st December 2016 at RIMS, Ranchi where he was admitted for treatment. According to the prosecution, the occurrence took place at around 4:30 PM on the same day. The prosecution witness no. 3 deposed in the Court that Pankaj Kumar Sahu fired at him who is his own nephew. Neeraj Kumar who was examined as PW2 however did not support the prosecution on identification of the appellant. He stated in the Court that the assailants were wearing face cover and their faces could not be seen.

14. In paragraph no.15 of his evidence, the investigating officer has

admitted in the Court, when C.C.T.V. footage was played during the trial, that at around 2:09 PM the assailant was seen coming on a motorcycle; he entered the premises at 2:10 PM and was seen fleeing away at around 2:15 PM. The investigating officer has clearly admitted that the face of the assailants was covered and at no point in time they removed the mask.

15. Besides the above, we find that the appellant has now undergone more than 5 years of sentence whereas in Sessions Trial No. 339 of 2017 he has been awarded sentence of RI of 10 years and Rs. 50,000/- under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

16. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances in the case, Pankaj Kumar Sahu, the appellant, above named, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII-cum-Special Judge, CBI-(AHD)-cum-Spl. Court (CAW), Ranchi in connection with Sessions Trial No. 339 of 2017 arising out of Pithoria PS Case No. 134 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 7315 of 2016 with the condition that he shall either remain physically present or through his learned counsel whenever Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1173 of 2018 is taken up for hearing.

17. I.A. No. 4418 of 2020 stands allowed.

18. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Court concerned and the concerned Jail Superintendent through "Fax".

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)

RKM