Jharkhand High Court
Bablu Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand on 31 August, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 547 of 2023
With
I.A. No. 3587 of 2023
---------
Bablu Pandey s/o Umesh Pandey, aged about 35 years, r/o Mandramo,
P.O. Mandramo, P.S. Sariya, District Giridih.
....... 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. Yogesh Modi, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, A.P.P.
-----------
st
04/Dated: 31 August, 2023
I.A. No. 3587 of 2023:
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 389(1)
of the Cr.P.C. for keeping the sentence in abeyance in connection with
the judgment of conviction dated 04.03.2023 and order of sentenced
dated 15.03.2023 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Giridih
in Sessions Trial No. 218 of 2022 arising out of Sariya P.S. Case No.
269 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. No. 690 of 2022, whereby and
whereunder, the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 and 201
of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine of
Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC as also
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years along with
fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC.
2. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the prosecution has
miserably failed to prove the charge beyond all shadow of doubt since
none of the prosecution witnesses has supported the prosecution version.
3. It has been submitted that only the investigating officer, P.W.- 10, has
supported the prosecution version but there is no corroboration of his
version with other prosecution witnesses rather all the prosecution
witnesses have been declared to be hostile, save and except, the doctor,
P.W.-9.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant, on the aforesaid premise, has
submitted that it if a fit case for suspension of sentence.
5. The matter was heard on 02.08.2023 and the learned counsel for the
respondent-State was given liberty to file affidavit in-objection. In
pursuance thereof, affidavit in-objection has been filed.
6. Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, learned counsel for the respondent-State has
submitted by referring to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses as
also averment made in the affidavit in-objection that it is incorrect on
behalf of the appellant to take the ground that the prosecution has
miserably failed to prove the charge. According to him, the investigating
officer has fully supported the prosecution version. Further, the doctor
has also corroborated the commission of crime as would appear from the
post-mortem report having been identified by the doctor, P.W.- 9.
7. It has been submitted that the learned trial court, after taking aid of the
provision of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act has convicted the
appellant since the death admittedly occurred in the house of the
appellant.
8. Learned State counsel, on the aforesaid premise, has submitted that it is
not a fit case for suspension of sentence.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone across the
finding recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment as
also the document available in the lower court record.
10. We, on consideration of the testimony of the witnesses, i.e., P.W.-1 to
P.W.-8, has found that the all have been declared to be hostile including
the father of the deceased, P.W.-1.
11. Learned counsel for the State has however, submitted that the
investigating officer has corroborated the prosecution version but the
version of the investigating officer has not been corroborated by the
other prosecution witnesses.
12. This Court, in the aforesaid premise, is of the prima facie view that the
sentence in connection with Sessions Trial No. 218 of 2022 arising out
of Sariya P.S. Case No. 269 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. No. 690 of
2022, deserves to be suspended.
13. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances, the instant interlocutory
application stands allowed.
14. Accordingly, the appellant, named above, is directed to be released on
bail during pendency of appeal on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/-
(Twenty-Five Thousand only) each with two sureties of the like amount,
to the satisfaction of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Giridih in
Sessions Trial No. 218 of 2022 arising out of Sariya P.S. Case No. 269
of 2021 corresponding to G.R. No. 690 of 2022.
15. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not prejudice
the case of the appellant on merit, since, the criminal appeal is lying
pending before this Court.
16. In view thereof, I.A. No. 3587 of 2023 stands disposed of with the
aforesaid observation and direction.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Saurabh/-
