Kailash Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 2275 Jhar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 2109 of 2017
                 Kailash Mahto                                               ....Appellant
                                                Versus
                 The State of Jharkhand                                      ... Respondent
           CORAM:           Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
                            Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary


           For the Appellant              : Mr. A.K.Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
                                            Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate
           For the State                  : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P.
                                                 ---

06/27.06.2022 Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant, Mr. A.K.Kashyap and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the renewed prayer for suspension of sentence made by this appellant through I.A. No. 469 of 2022.

This appellant along with one Sakhinder Mishra @ Sakhu Mishra @ Sakhu Baba stand convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34, 201/34,394/34 of I.P.C by the impugned judgment dated 21.09.2017 passed in Sessions Trial No. 3 of 2009 by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat, (Bokaro) and both the convicts have been sentenced in the following manner, by the impugned order of sentence dated 23.09.2017.

                Sl.      Offences U/s                             Sentence
                No.
                                              Imprisonment             Fine            Default
            01.       Section 302/34 of Rigorous                 Rs. 10,000/- each   R.I. for 6
                      I.P.C             Imprisonment       for                       months each
                                        Life
            02.       Section 201/34 of R.I for 4 years          Rs.5,000/- each     R.I for 6
                      I.P.C                                                          months each
            03.       Section 394/34 of R.I. for 4 years         Rs. 1,000/- each    R.I for 3
                      I.P.C                                                          months each

Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that both the accused persons have been convicted on the same allegations and incriminating material

which is recovery of the weapon Ballam (Bhala) on the confession of this appellant and the slipper of the deceased on confession of the co-accused. No one has seen the occurrence. The Inspector of Police has lodged the F.I.R on the information supplied by Chaukidar. No Forensic Science Laboratory Report has been adduced to establish that the weapon of assault Ballam (Bhala) was the same as is alleged to be used in the murder of the deceased i.e., owner of Tata Magic. It is submitted that the co-accused, Sakhinder Mishra @ Sakhu Mishra @ Sakhu Baba has been enlarged on bail by suspending the sentence by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14 th June, 2022 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 123 of 2018 taking into note that there are no other incriminating material, except the recovery of blood stained slipper, which has not been shown to be belonging to the deceased. Both the appellants are in custody from 21st September, 2017 after their bail bonds were cancelled. The case of this appellant stands on similar footing to that of co-convict. Therefore, appellant may also be enlarged on bail by suspending the sentence.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the materials borne from the Lower Court Records, including the order dated 14th June, 2022 granting bail to the co-convict, Sakhinder Mishra @ Sakhu Mishra @ Sakhu Baba. It appears that trial court has convicted both the accused on the same incriminating material i.e., recovery of Ballam (Bhala) and the slippers of the deceased on their confession, but there is no Forensic Science Laboratory report to show that the same Bhala was used in connection with the crime.

Having regard to facts and circumstances above and that the similarly situated co-convict has been enlarged on bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court, we are inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail by suspending the sentence. Accordingly, appellant, above-named, shall be released on bail, during 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 Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat, (Bokaro) in connection with Sessions Trial No. 3 of 2009, if not wanted in any other case, subject to the condition that one of the bailors shall be the deponent of the affidavit namely, Vinod Kumar, S/o Nanda Mahto, R/o 51 Behratand Near Angan Bari Kendra Ward No. 07 Barka Chumba, Ramgarh, P.O & P.S.

Ramgarh, District- Ramgarh, whose photocopy of U.I.D Card enclosed to the I.A be sent to learned Trial Court for verification at the time of his release. Other bailor shall be the family member/close relative of the appellant. Appellant and his bailors shall not change their mobile number or address without permission of trial court and shall also submit their Aadhar Card at the time of his release.

The instant I.A stands disposed of.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J) jk/