Jharkhand High Court
Rameshwar Das vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 August, 2023
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 228 of 2023
----
Rameshwar Das ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-------
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Vikram Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl.P.P
--------
th
Order No. 06 : Dated 10 August, 2023
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J:
I.A. No. 4589 of 2023
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed
under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
on behalf of appellant, named above, for suspension of
sentence during the pendency of the instant appeal after
suspending the impugned order of sentence dated
09.12.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge,-XVI, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 68 of 2010
arising out of Dhanbad (Bankmore) P.S. Case No. 810 of
2009 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 3150 of 2009,
whereby and whereunder the appellant has been
convicted for the offences under Sections 323, 307 and
302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for offence
under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC with fine of Rs.
10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer S.I.
for further six months. Since the appellant has already
been sentenced for offence under Section 302 r/w 34
IPC, no separate sentence is required to be awarded
under Section 323 and 307 r/w 34 IPC.
2. The case was heard on 02.08.2023 and this Court,
having heard learned counsel for the appellant, asked
the State -respondent to file objection affidavit, in terms
of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Somesh Chaurasia v. State of M.P. and
Another reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 480.
3. In terms thereof, objection affidavit has been filed, which
is on record.
4. Mr. Vikram Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant has
submitted that impugned order suffers from infirmities if
the testimony of Jamni Devi-P.W.5 will be taken into
consideration who had disclosed the name of two
persons, namely, Goutam Das and Rakesh Koiri while
giving her fard beyan in RIMS, the day when the
deceased was carrying to the RIMS for treatment but at
the time of recording her testimony in course of trial she
has completely changed her version by taking the name
of the appellant. Therefore, the testimony of P.W. 5 is
nothing but after-thought and only for the purpose of
devilment of entire prosecution version in order to
implicate the appellant since, there is enmity in between
the informant side and appellant. It has been submitted
that in record it has come that the appellant was living
in the house of the deceased in capacity of tenant and
some dispute arose and only due to that reason, the
appellant has been implicated in this case, as would
appear from the testimony of P.W. 5.
5. It has further been submitted that nothing new has been
stated in the objection affidavit filed by the respondent-
State save and except the reiteration of the deposition of
the witnesses, as has been discussed by learned trial
Court. It has been submitted that in the objection
affidavit one document has been appended as Annexure
A, wherefrom it is evident that the appellant has no
criminal antecedent also.
6. Therefore, submission has been made that it is a fit case
where the appellant may be released from judicial
custody after suspending the sentence.
7. While on the other hand, Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned
Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of
Jharkhand has submitted by countering the argument
advanced on behalf of appellant that the conviction is
based upon the testimony of witnesses taken together
and hence it is not a case where the prosecution has
failed to substantiate the charge said to be not beyond
the shadow of doubt.
8. Learned Special Public Prosecutor on the basis of
aforesaid submission has made serious objection to the
prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the documents available on record as also the
testimony of witnesses.
10. This Court in order to examine the discrepancies
in the testimony of P.W. 5 for the purpose of appreciation of
argument advanced on behalf of appellant, has gone
through the testimony of P.W. 5 and found that P.W. 5-
Jamni Devi while recorded her statement in the fard beyan
in RIMS, Ranchi she has disclosed name of two persons,
namely, Goutam Das and Rakesh Koiri but while deposing
in course of trial she has taken the name of appellant. This
Court, therefore, prima facie is of the view that P.W. 5 has
changed her version by taking the name of appellant in
course of trial and as such what has been argued on behalf
of appellant the same cannot be said to be not acceptable.
Therefore, we are prima facie of the view that element of
doubt is there.
11. This Court, on the basis of the discussions made
herein above, prima facie is of the view that the instant
Interlocutory Application deserves to be allowed.
12. Accordingly, I.A. No. 4589 of 2023 stands allowed.
13. In consequence thereof, the appellant named
above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing
bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge,-XVI,
Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 68 of 2010 arising out of
Dhanbad (Bankmore) P.S. Case No. 810 of 2009
corresponding to G.R. Case No. 3150 of 2009.
14. Accordingly, Interlocutory Application being, I.A.
No. 4589 of 2023, stands disposed of.
15. It is made clear that any observation made
hereinabove will not prejudice the case of the appellant
on merit since the appeal is lying pending for its
consideration.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Alankar/
