Benjamin Tirkey vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 4401 Jhar

                                   -1-

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    I.A. No.6936 of 2022
                            In
             Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.262 of 2022

     Benjamin Tirkey
     @ Benjamin Morris                             ......       Appellant
                              Versus
     The State of Jharkhand                        .....     Respondent
                              ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---------

For the Appellant : Mr. Mohit Prakash, Advocate For the State : Mr. Veervijay Pradhan, A.P.P.

---------

               rd
07/Dated: 03        November, 2022
I.A. No.6936 of 2022

1. The present interlocutory application has been filed under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence and grant of ad-interim bail, to the appellant, during the pendency of the appeal.

2. The appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.02.2022, passed by the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner - XVI, Ranchi, in S.T. No.35 of 2017, whereby the appellant and others have been convicted for the offence under Sections 25(1A) and 26(2) of the Arms Act and the maximum sentence imposed upon them is rigorous imprisonment for seven years along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- with a default clause for each count.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that although the appellant was made accused for robbery as well as under the Arms Act, but after facing the trial, he has been acquitted for the offence of robbery and has been convicted only under the Arms Act. It has further been submitted that in the present case the seizure list witnesses have not supported the case rather they have given statement that their signatures have been taken on a blank paper. Further, the seizure has not been made as per the rules and the same is itself doubtful, which is the prime ingredient for conviction under the Arms Act. On the above basis, prayer for suspension of sentence has been made.

4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence and it has been submitted that the official witnesses, i.e., the police personnel, have supported the seizure. The official witnesses are also witnesses and their

testimony cannot be rejected outrightly.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that as per the allegation, the appellant has been apprehended with 9 m.m. fully loaded pistol with three live cartridges. The official witnesses have supported the factum of seizure from the possession of the appellant.

Considering the materials available on record, I am not inclined to suspend the sentence and enlarge the appellant on bail at this stage.

6. Accordingly, I.A. No.6936 of 2022 stands rejected.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Chandan/-