Jharkhand High Court
Tuplal Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 904 of 2022
------
Tuplal Yadav ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
--------
For the Appellant : Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl.P.P.
--------
th
Order No. 03: Dated: 28 February, 2023
Heard, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
and learned Spl.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 25.11.2022 and order of sentence
dated 28.11.2022, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III,
Giridih, in S.T. No.387 of 2009, arising out of Birni P.S. Case No.125
of 2008 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted
for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 304 part II of IPC
and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six
months for the offence punishable under Sections 323 of IPC and
rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs.10,000/- for the
offence punishable under Section 304 part II of IPC and in default of
payment of fine, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment
for 3 months and the learned court also directed that all the
sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has
submitted that one I.A. No.876 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 28.11.2022.
It has been pointed out that the allegations against the
appellant is that a dispute arose between both the parties in the
wake of construction of wall on the landed properties and during
the course of dispute this appellant is alleged to have assaulted the
deceased- Tulo Mahto on his head by lathi and thereby he sustained
injuries and during the course of the treatment, he succumbed to the
injuries.
It has been pointed out that from the deposition of the
Doctor, P.W.-10 (Dr. Pradeep Kumar Roy) it is found that the
injuries which are alleged to have been inflicted upon the deceased
were simple in nature and therefore, neither intention nor any
knowledge was there in order to attract the offence punishable
under part II of section 304 of IPC.
It has further been pointed out that there are major
discrepancies in the prosecution case with respect to the manner
and mode of the assault by the accused persons and other co-
accused person, Kunti Devi, who faced the trial along with the
appellant, but she has been acquitted by the learned court below.
It has further been pointed out that no weapon has been
seized from the place of occurrence and therefore, this accused
appellant has been debarred to bring into notice of the concerned
I.O. and Doctor about the manner and mode of assault alleged to
have been inflicted by this appellant and therefore, non-production
of the weapons used in the commission of the offence has caused
serious prejudice to the defence of the appellant.
Further, it has been pointed that the appellant has remained
in jail from 24.02.2009 to 24.10.2011 in pre-conviction period and
further from 25.11.2022 in post-conviction period till today and thus,
about 3 years, he has remained in jail 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 the pending of this appeal.
On the other hand, the learned Spl.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
including the LCR.
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 pending 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, Giridih, in S.T.
No.387 of 2009 arising out Birni P.S. Case No.125 of 2008 subject to
the condition, which set out under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and further
subject to the conditions that entire fine amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten
Thousands Only) 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-5 (Most. Tipni Devi, wife of the
deceased) by way of compensation, without being prejudice to his
right of defence.
The learned court below is directed to issue notice to the P.W-5
(Most. Tipni Devi) and after her appearance and proper identification
the entire fine amount so deposited by the appellant shall be disbursed
to her.
I.A. No.876 of 2023 gets disposed of accordingly.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
R.S./-
