Jharkhand High Court
Safique Mian vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 645 of 2022
------
Safique Mian ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
--------
For the Appellant : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, Addl.P.P.
--------
th
Order No. 05: Dated: 28 February, 2023
Heard, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
and learned Addl.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.
It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that this Court has
already admitted this appeal which has been preferred against the
judgment of conviction dated 15.06.2022 and order of sentence dated
17.06.2022, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Jamtara,
in Session Trial Case No.125 of 2017 (arising out of Narayanpur P.S.
Case No.33 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No.172 of 2017) whereby
and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Jamtara
convicted the appellant under Sections 148, 325 and 307 of IPC and
Section 27 of Arms Act and has sentenced the appellant to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees
One Thousand) under Section 148 of IPC and default of payment of
fine further to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months, R.I. for 7
years and also a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 307 of IPC and in
default of fine amount further to undergo R.I. for 6 months, R.I. for 5
years and fine of Rs.3000/- under Section 325 of IPC and default of
payment of fine amount further to undergo R.I. for 6 months, R.I. for 5
years and also a fine of Rs.3000/- under Section 27 of Arms Act, 1959
and default of payment of fine amount further to undergo R.I. for 6
months and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently and
the period already undergone was directed to be set off.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has
submitted that one I.A. No.1671 of 2023 has been filed on behalf of the
appellant to enlarge the appellant on bail during the pendency of the
appeal by suspending the execution of order of sentence dated
17.06.2022.
It has been pointed out that the appellant has been charged
along with other co-accused persons that they assaulted the
informant/ P.W.-2 (Safaul Ansari) and the appellant caused fire armed
gun injuries due to which the victim P.W.-2 (Safaul Ansari) sustained
three injuries.
It has been pointed out that the Doctor, P.W.-5 (Dr. Shankar
Prasad Mandal) has been examined on behalf of the prosecution and
he has found three injuries, out of that two injuries were simple in
nature and opinion with respect to the third injury i.e. fracture of right
humerus bone on upper part was grievous in nature, but he has
admitted that his opinion is not based on the x-ray of the fractured
portion of the victim and therefore, he was not in a position to say as
to the nature and type of the fracture found on person of the injured
and therefore, the opinion which was given by the Doctor with respect
to the injury no.(iii) as grievous is not substantiated scientifically and it
is a swiping opinion given by the Doctor and that is not tenable in the
eyes of law.
It has further been pointed out that the informant witness P.W.-
2 (Safaul Ansari) examined on behalf of the prosecution has
categorically stated that I.O. has seized the bullet and T-shirt from the
place of occurrence, but I.O. (P.W.-8- Prabhu Bhushan Kumar) has
stated that no any bullet was seized from the place of occurrence and
therefore, the statement of the injured person was not in reliable with
respect to the gun shot injuries and in this backdrop, it is submitted
that conviction under Section 307 of IPC as held by the learned court
below is bad in law and not based on cogent evidence.
Further, it has been pointed that the appellant has already
remained in jail more than 1 and ½ years including the pre-conviction
period and post-conviction period and this appeal is not likely to be
heard in near future and therefore, it is submitted that let this
appellant also be enlarged on bail during pendency of this appeal.
On the other hand, the learned Addl.P.P. appearing on behalf
of the State opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant.
Having heard both the parties, perused the record of this case.
In the light of the persuasive submissions advanced on behalf
of the appellant, this Court finds that it is just and fair in the interest of
justice to enlarge the appellant on bail during pendency of this appeal.
Accordingly, the appellant is directed to be enlarged on bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousands
Only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of
learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Jamtara, in Session Trial Case
No.125 of 2017 (arising out of Narayanpur P.S. Case No.33 of 2017,
corresponding to G.R. No.172 of 2017) subject to the conditions, which
are set out under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and further subject to the
condition that entire fine amount as awarded by the learned court
below to the appellant in the various heads/ counts shall be deposited
in the court below in order to give it to the P.W.-2 (Safaul Ansari) by
way of compensation without being prejudice to his right of defence.
The learned court below is directed to issue notice to the victim
P.W.-2 (Safaul Ansari) and after his appearance and proper
identification, the entire fine amount so deposited by the appellant
shall be disbursed to him.
I.A. No.1671 of 2023 gets disposed of accordingly.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
R.S./-
