Jharkhand High Court
Santosh Das vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 868 of 2018
--------
Santosh Das, s/o late Sukhdeo Das, r/o village-Tharidulampur, PO
& PS-Kunda, Dist. Deoghar. ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
For the Appellant : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Awanish Shekhar, Advocate
--------
Order No.07/Dated: 8th September 2022
I.A No. 1043 of 2022
This application has been filed by the appellant for
suspension of sentence during pendency of Criminal Appeal (DB)
No. 868 of 2018.
2. On 4th December 2018 application for suspension of
sentence filed by the appellant has been rejected by this Court in
the following terms:
"Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
counsel for the State, as also learned counsel for the informant,
on the interlocutory application for granting bail, during the
pendency of this appeal.
The appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the
offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 /149 of the Indian Penal
Code.
The impugned Judgment shows that there is direct and
specific allegation against this appellant also to have assaulted
the deceased by farsa on his head.
In the facts of this case, we are not inclined to release the
appellant, Santosh Das, on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail
is rejected.
This interlocutory application stands dismissed."
3. Second application for suspension of sentence filed by
the appellant has been rejected by this Court on 12 th March 2021
in the following terms:
"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
offences under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 of the Indian Penal
Code.
2 Criminal Appeal (DB) No.868 of 2018
There being direct and specific allegation against the
appellant to have assaulted the deceased by farsa on his head,
earlier prayer for bail of the appellant was rejected on merits.
Learned counsel for the appellant has renewed the prayer for
bail.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not
inclined to release the appellant on bail. Accordingly, prayer for
bail stands rejected.
The aforesaid interlocutory application stands
dismissed."
4. This is 3rd attempt by the appellant seeking suspension
of the sentence in the instant criminal appeal.
5. In Sessions Trial No. 74 of 2016, the appellant has been
convicted and sentenced to RI for life and fine of Rs.10,000/-
under section 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code
(in short, IPC), RI for one year under section 147 IPC and RI for
two years under section 148 IPC with a stipulation to undergo SI
for four months in default of payment of fine of Rs.10,000/-.
6. The allegation against the appellant is that he inflicted
Farsa blow on the head of Rajesh Das @ Raju Das. In Sessions
Trial No. 74 of 2016, the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses.
PW1 and PW2 are the eyewitnesses who have spoken about role
played by the appellant in the occurrence.
7. PW4, Dr. Birendra Prasad Singh who conducted
autopsy on the dead body of Rajesh Das @ Raju Das found one
ante-mortem sharp cut injury on left parietal region of skull and
one ante-mortem sharp cut injury on left side of back of the neck
of the deceased. In the opinion of the doctor, the aforesaid two
injuries were caused by sharp cutting heavy weapon which
according to Mr. Awanish Shekhar, the learned counsel for the
informant matches with prosecution allegation of attack on Rajesh
Das @ Raju Das with a Farsa.
8. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the appellant
assisted by Mr. Ankit Kumar, the learned counsel, submits that
PW1 who according to the prosecution is an eyewitness has
deposed in the Court that as many as three persons assaulted
Rajesh Das @ Raju Das with a Farsa and, therefore, even believing
the prosecution case against the appellant that he inflicted Farsa
3 Criminal Appeal (DB) No.868 of 2018
blow on the head of Rajesh Das @ Raju Das it cannot be inferred
that the appellant was author of the fatal blow.
9. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the appellant
has tried to support his submission on the basis of opinion
rendered by PW4 that cause of death of Rajesh Das @ Raju Das
was shock and hemorrhage particularly profused bleeding and
while so the injury no.2 could have been proved fatal and not the
injury no.1, which according to the prosecution was authored by
the appellant.
10. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the appellant
would further submit that there are several thousand criminal
appeals pending hearing before this Hon'ble Court and presently
there is just one Bench for hearing appeal as well as the
applications for suspension of sentence arising out of Criminal
Appeal Division Bench.
11. On such facts it is contended that not only there is no
reasonable probability of hearing of Criminal Appeal No. 868 of
2018 in near future the same might take more than ten years
before this criminal appeal is finally heard and disposed of by this
Court.
12. Submission raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant is that the appellant who has remained in custody for
more than six years and six months deserves benefit of suspension
of sentence on this ground alone.
13. Mr. Awanish Shekhar, the learned counsel for the
informant and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, the learned APP would,
however, oppose the prayer for grant of suspension of sentence on
the ground that there is direct allegation against the appellant and
there is no substantial ground for challenging the judgment of
conviction of the appellant recorded in Sessions Trial No. 74 of
2016.
14. We may indicate that we are not examining
sustainability or otherwise of the judgment passed in sessions trial
but on basic issues, we form an opinion that (i) there is no
reasonable possibility of hearing of this criminal appeal in near
4 Criminal Appeal (DB) No.868 of 2018
future and (ii) the case against the appellant as rightly argued by
the learned counsel for the appellant may fall at best under
section 304 Part-II IPC.
15. For this proposition the learned counsel for the
appellant has relied on the judgment in "Bhunnilal Chaudhary v.
State of Bihar (2006) 10 SCC 639.
16. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
though this is the 3rd attempt by the appellant, we are inclined to
grant suspension of sentence to the appellant during pendency of
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 868 of 2018.
17. We may indicate that the 1st application was dismissed
saying that there is allegation of giving Farsa blow on head and 2nd
application was dismissed simply recording the same allegation
against the appellant.
18. Accordingly, the appellant, namely, Santosh Das is
directed to be released on bail during pendency of the appeal 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 Sessions Judge-VI, Deoghar in connection to
Sessions Trial No. 74 of 2016 arising out of Deoghar (Town) PS
Case No. 664 of 2015 with conditions that: (i) he shall provide his
mobile number and copy of the Aadhaar card disclosing his
present address of residence and (ii) he shall also remain present
personally or through his lawyer when this criminal appeal is
taken up for hearing.
19. I.A No. 1043 of 2022 is allowed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
Amit/
