Matu Bandiyan vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 1790 Jhar

                         1




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
      Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.171 of 2023
                        -----

1. Matu Bandiyan

2. Shibu Bandiyan .... ... Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent

-------

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

-------

For the Appellant : Mr. Navneet Sahay, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Amrita Kumari, A.P.P.

------

Order No. 05/Dated 27th April, 2023

I.A. No.1394 of 2023

With the consent of the learned counsel for the

parties the instant application has been heard which has

been filed on behalf of the appellants under Section 389(1)

of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of

sentence passed in consequence of the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 14.11.2022 and

19.11.2022 respectively in connection with S.T. Case No.

245 of 2013 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II,

Seraikella.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, at the

outset, has submitted that he is not pressing the prayer for

keeping the sentence in abeyance so far as it relates to

Matu Bandiyan.

The submission, therefore, has been made that the

instant interlocutory application may be confined only for

consideration of the prayer for suspension of sentence with

respect to applicant Shibu Bandiyan.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has

submitted that there is no specific overt act alleged against

applicant Shibu Bandiyan and nothing specific has come in

course of trial after recording the testimony of the

witnesses.

It has been contended that merely on the ground of

presence at the place of occurrence the complicity of the

applicant cannot be said to be a conclusive proof so far as

the Sections under which the judgment of conviction has

been passed.

While on the other hand, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor appearing for the State of Jharkhand, has

submitted that the case of ten applicants have already been

rejected, out of which prayer for suspension of sentence of

co-convicts, namely, Manu Hessa, Jagmohan Bandiyan,

Dularam Hembram, Pahalwan Hembram, Sonaram

Hembram, Langru Hembram @ Langru Hambrom, Man

Singh Hembram @ Man Singh Hembrom and Geju

Hembram has been rejected vide order dated 16.03.2023

whereas prayer for suspension of sentence of co-convicts,

namely, Manki Bandiyan and Jodde Bandiyan @ Jote has

been rejected vide order dated 23.03.2023 and the case of

the applicant Shibu Bandiyan is exactly similar to that of

the all ten co-convicts.

It has further been contended that it has come on

record that it is on the basis of the confession of applicant

Shibu Bandiyan, the dead body of the deceased lady was

found near the canal, as transpired from the testimony of

the investigating officer.

Learned A.P.P., on the basis of the aforesaid

ground, has submitted that it is not a fit case for

suspension of sentence.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties

and after taking into consideration the fact that the

applications for suspension of sentence with respect to ten

co-convicts have already been rejected vide order dated

16.03.2023 and 23.03.2023, in order to assess the

difference in between the case of the co-convicts whose

applications for suspension of sentence have been rejected,

we scrutinized the material available on record against the

applicant Shibu Bandiyan for the purpose of appreciating

the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant and

found that the basis of conviction against the applicant

Shibu Bandiyan is also similar to that of the other accused

persons whose applications have been rejected.

This Court has rejected the applications of

co-convicts after taking into consideration the testimony of

P.W.-5 being corroborated by the other witnesses, including

the evidence of the doctor and hence, this Court is not

prima facie satisfied to allow the instant application

Regard being had to the facts of the case and basis

upon the reason stated above, we are not inclined to release

the applicant Shibu Bandiyan, on bail. Accordingly, his

prayer for bail is rejected.

The instant interlocutory application (I.A. No.1394

of 2023) is accordingly, dismissed.

It is made clear that any observation made herein

will not prejudice the case on merit as the appeal is lying

pending for its consideration.

Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the

appellant through Jail Superintendent.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Subhash Chand, J.) Birendra/