Jharkhand High Court
Devthan Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 470 of 2018
Devthan Mahto, age about 21 years, s/o Sri Suku Mahto, r/o Village-East
Tarup, PO+PS-Ratu, District-Ranchi ...... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
For the Appellant : Mrs. Neeta Krishna, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, Spl. PP
---------
Order No. 11 /Dated: 27th September 2022
I.A No.6658 of 2022
This application for suspension of sentence has been assigned
to DB-III by an order dated 9th June 2022 passed by Hon'ble the Chief
Justice, High Court of Jharkhand, on administrative side.
2. The appellant along with Santosh Kumar Mahto and Jitu Mahto
have been convicted and sentenced to RI for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/
each under section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code, with default stipulation
to serve sentence of SI for six months.
3. In Sessions Trial Case No.637 of 2016, the prosecution
examined 14 witnesses to establish the charge under section 364-A/34 of
the Indian Penal Code.
4. The learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner-X-cum-FTC (CAW),
Ranchi has held that the victim who was examined as PW12 communicated
the demand of ransom of Rs.10 lakhs to his wife and this fact has been
confirmed by PW5 who is the informant of this case.
5. Mrs. Neeta Krishna, the learned counsel for the appellant would urge
that the demand of ransom cannot be said to have been proved by the
prosecution for the reason that Munshi Mahto and Rajesh Mahto from
whose mobile phones the wife of the victim allegedly has spoken to her
husband were not produced during the trial.
2 Criminal Appeal (DB)No.470 of 2018
6. The learned counsel for the appellant to fortify her aforesaid
submissions has referred to the judgment in "Shaik Ahmed v. State of
Telangana" (2021) 9 SCC 59.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant has further referred to the
order dated 28th June 2022 passed in I.A No.3710 of 2022 which was filed
by co-convict Santosh Kumar Mahto and Jitu Mahto in Criminal Appeal
(DB) No. 434 of 2018 to submit that the appellant on the ground of parity
deserves suspension of sentence during pendency of the present criminal
appeal.
8. Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, the learned Spl. PP has opposed
the prayer for suspension of sentence with particular reference to paragraph
no.22 of the judgment dated 30th January 2018 passed in Sessions Trial Case
No.637 of 2016.
9. It is stated that the appellant is in custody since 26th August
2016 and there is no reasonable possibility of hearing of this criminal appeal
in near future.
10. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the
appellant, named above, is directed to be released on bail, during pendency
of this appeal, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand
only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner-X-cum-FTC (CAW), Ranchi in
Sessions Trial Case No.637 of 2016, subject to the conditions that:
(i) the appellant shall deposit the fine amount within six weeks
from today, failing which he shall surrender before the Court
concerned;
(ii) the appellant shall remain physically present or through his
authorized counsel in the Court whenever this criminal appeal
is listed for hearing in the Court, however, if no one appears on
his behalf on the day when this criminal appeal is listed on
Board for hearing the State may file an application for recall of
this order, and;
(iii) the appellant shall disclose his present address and mobile
number to the Investigating Officer of the case.
3 Criminal Appeal (DB)No.470 of 2018
11. I.A No.6658 of 2022 stands allowed, in the aforesaid terms.
12. 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.)
sudhir
