Jharkhand High Court
Sagar Murmu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.761 of 2022
Sagar Murmu ..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
For the Appellant : Mr. Suraj Kishore Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Swami Nath Prasad Rai, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Achinto Sen, APP
-----
5/12.04.2023 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and
learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
I.A. No. 9576 of 2022
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted
that one IA No. 9576 of 2022 has been filed on behalf of the appellant
with a prayer to enlarge the appellant on bail during pending of this
appeal, which has been preferred against the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 22.08.2022 and 26.08.2022 respectively
passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sahibganj in S.T. No. 02 of 2016,
arising out of Borio P.S. Case No. 296 of 2015, G.R. No. 708 of 2015,
whereby and whereunder the appellant was convicted for the offence
under sections 307 and 323 of I.P.C. and has been sentenced to
undergo R. I. for five years with a fine of Rs. 2000/- U/s 307 I.P.C. and
in default of making payment, further sentenced to S.I. for six months.
The appellant was further sentenced to R.I. for one year with a fine of
Rs. 500/- u/s 323 I.P.C. and in default of making payment, further to
serve S.I. of one month. It is directed that both the sentences will run
concurrently without appreciating the material on record.
It has been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant that the learned court below did not appreciate
the evidences in view of the admitted fact that there was a previous
enmity between both the parties. It has been pointed out that the
injuries, which were alleged to have been inflicted were simple in
nature as is evident from the deposition of the PW-8 Dr. Kalwari
Oraon and virtually there is only one injury that is lacerated wound
measuring 1"x ½" bone deep of the scalp over the frontal bone left
side and therefore the intention and knowledge in order to sustain the
conviction under section 307 of IPC is not substantiated.
Further it has been pointed out that it is admitted case of the
prosecution that there is no repetitive blow upon the injured PW2.
Further it has also been pointed out that the appellant was in custody
since 22/8/2022 after his conviction and he has remained in custody
from 19/9/2015 to 3/6/2017 in the pre-conviction and as such the
appellant has already served the sentence for about 2 years 4 months
and as such half of the maximum sentence awarded by the learned
court below, i.e. 5 years have already been served by this appellant
and this appeal is not likely to be heard in near future and accordingly
it is prayed that the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
State opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and
submitted that there is direct evidence of assault by the appellant and
therefore he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
Having heard the parties, perused the record of this case.
In the light of persuasive submission advanced on behalf of the
appellant, it is found just and proper to enlarge the appellant on bail
during pending of this appeal.
Accordingly, the appellant above named is directed to be
enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to
the satisfaction of the court of learned Sessions Judge, Sahibganj, in
connection with S.T. No.02 of 2016, arising out of Borio P.S. Case
No.296 of 2015, G.R. No.708 of 2015, subject to the conditions as laid
down under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and further subject to the condition
that the entire fine amount that is ₹2500/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Hundred) awarded by the learned court below under both the
counts also shall be deposited in the court below, without being
prejudiced to his right of defence, by way of compensation in order to
give it to the victim PW2 Santu Hembram.
The learned court below is directed to issue notice to the PW-2
informant (injured) and after his appearance and proper identification,
the amount so deposited by the appellant, would be disbursed in his
favour by way of compensation.
Accordingly IA No. 9576 of 2022 gets disposed of.
Let this appeal be listed under the heading for hearing in
seriatim.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
R.Kumar
