Jharkhand High Court
Mithun Pan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 April, 2023
1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 848 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 848 of 2022
------
1. Mithun Pan
2. Subhash Pan ... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
--------
For the Appellant : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, Addl.P.P.
--------
Order No. 05: Dated: 11th April, 2023
Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.
I.A. No.2323 of 2023
The interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the
appellants praying therein to enlarge the appellants during the
appending of this appeal which has been preferred against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.09.2022
passed by learned sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in
connection with S.T. Case No. 69 of 2022 arising out of the Manjahri
P.S. Case No. 02/2021 whereby and where under the above named
appellants have been found guilty by learned Sessions Judge, West
Singhbhum at Chaibasa and the appellants have convicted u/s 307
read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby
sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 07 year and fine of
Rs. 10,000/- for each for the charge and in case of default of fine,
each of them would have to undergo 06 month additional simple
imprisonment.
It has been pointed on behalf of the appellants that the learned
court below did not appreciate the evidences adduced on behalf of
the prosecution and in view of the fact that the injured P.W. 1 did
not support the case of the prosecution particularly with respect to
2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 848 of 2022
the identify the person by whom he had sustained the injuries.
Further, it has also been pointed out that it is an admitted case of the
prosecution that the informant was in a drunken state at the time of
the commission of the alleged offence by which P.W.1 had sustained
the injuries. Further, it has also been pointed out that Dr. Sanatan
Chatar was examined and he opined that the injury which is said to
have been inflicted was simple in nature as per the C.T. Scan report
and therefore the learned trial court did not appreciate the evidences
adduced on behalf of the prosecution in order to ascertain
knowledge and intention within the meaning of section 307 of IPC
to substantiate the charges leveled against the appellant for the
offence punishable u/s 307 of IPC. Further, it has also been pointed
out that both the appellants are in jail since 23.09.2022 after the
judgment of conviction and during the course of the trial both of
them had also remained in jail for about 3 months.
On the other hand, the learned Addl.P.P. opposed the
contentions raised on behalf of the appellants for grant of bail.
Having heard the parties, perused the record of this case.
In the light of the forceful submission advanced on behalf of
the appellants it is found just and proper to enlarge the appellants
on bail. Accordingly, the appellants are directed to be enlarged on
bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousands only) each with two sureties of the like amount each, to
the satisfaction of learned Session Judge, West Singhbhum at
Chaibasa in connection with S.T. Case No. 69 of 2022 arising out of
Manjhari P.S. Case No. 02 of 2021 subject to the conditions as set out
u/s 439 of Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 2323 of 2023 gets disposed of.
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 848 of 2022
This appeal is admitted for hearing.
3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 848 of 2022
Issue notice.
Let the lower court record be called for from the
concerned.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
MM
