Jharkhand High Court
Jetha Kachhap vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 December, 2023
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 682 of 2022
Jetha Kachhap ... ... ... ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... ... Respondent
---------
CORAM: SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J.
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
---------
For the Appellant: Mr. Manoj Kumar Choubey, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P.
---------
04/Dated: 05.12.2023
I.A. No. 5713 of 2023
This is an Application filed under Section 389 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of sentence and grant for
bail to the appellant, during pendency of the appeal.
The appellant has been convicted by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-I, Khunti in Sessions Trial Case No. 860 of 2013(A)
as per the judgment dated 07.05.2022 under Sections 302/34 of the
Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act and have
been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under
Sections 302/34 of the Penal Code and fine with default stipulation
and rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 27 of the Arms
Act and fine with default stipulation, have also been awarded by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti, vide order of sentence
dated 12.05.2022.
Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that though
there are two eye witnesses, i.e., P.W.2 and P.W. 6, the prosecution
case cannot be believed as it is not supported by the evidence of
P.W.5-Dr. Sunil Khalkho, who has conducted post mortem
examination on the dead body of the deceased. However, careful
examination of narration of eye witnesses and the evidence of the
Doctor who conducted post mortem examination reveals that the
deceased has suffered homicidal nature of death due to firearm
injuries. Infact, the evidence of both the eye witnesses are
corroborated by the medical evidence and we are not in agreement to
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant that
the eye witnesses are not real eye witnesses and they should not be
believed.
Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
appellant-Jetha Kachhap should be granted bail as the co-accused
Sanatan Swansi and Pancham Mahto have been granted bail by
Coordinate Benches of this Court.
We have perused the order dated 15.01.2019 passed in Cr.
Appeal (DB) No. 347 of 2018 and order dated 21.01.2022 passed in
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 570 of 2022. It is apparent from the record
that in that case the witnesses have not implicated the appellants
therein. In the order dated 21.09.2022, the Coordinate Bench has
considered the application of appellant Sanatan Swansi and has held
that the evidences of the witnesses indicate that the allegation of firing
is attributed to Jetha Kachhap and Barna Oraon. Barna Oraon is
dead. The present appellant is Jetha Kachhap. So the case against
the present appellant stands on different footing than the other two
accused who have been granted suspension of sentence. We find no
reason to grant the same benefit as claimed by the learned counsel
for the appellant.
On the above grounds, we do not find any substantial reason or
cause to suspend the sentence and grant bail to the present
appellant. Hence, this Interim Application filed under Section 389 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure is dismissed.
Grant urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
List this case in the 4th week of April, 2024.
(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)
(Ananda Sen, J.)
VK
