Jharkhand High Court
Mahendra Oraon vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.615 of 2022
Mahendra Oraon ..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Sr. Advocate
For the State : Mr. Satish Prasad, APP
-----
5/05.01.2023 Heard learned senior counsel Mr. Rajeev Sharma appearing on
behalf of the appellant and learned APP Mr. Satish Prasad appearing on
behalf of the state.
It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that one I.A. No. 11921 of
2022 has been filed with a prayer to suspend the order of execution of
sentence by enlarging the appellant on bail during pending of this
appeal. It has been pointed out that this court admitted the appeal, which
has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 27.07.2022
and order of sentence dated 30.07.2022, passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Sahibganj, in S.T. No.174 of 2018, arising out of Borio (J)
P.S. Case No.58 of 2018 (G.R. No.151 of 2018) whereby and where under
the sole appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under section
307 of IPC and he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 8 years with a fine of
Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for one year.
He was further convicted under Section 324 of IPC and he was sentenced
to undergo R.I. for 2 years and a fine of ₹2000/- and in default of
payment of fine, to undergo R.I. for 4 months. Further the appellant was
convicted for the offense punishable under section 27 of the arms act and
sentence to undergo R.I. for 5 years with a fine of Rs.5000/- and in
default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo R.I. for 4 months
and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the manner
and mode of occurrence is not corroborated in the deposition of the
victim informant PW-5 when he was examined in the court during the
course of trial and there is a complete departure of the story of the
prosecution case from the way it has been presented in the FIR. Further it
has been pointed out that the appellant has already remained in jail
about more than 1.5 years and he was all along on bail before the
judgment of conviction and therefore he deserves to be enlarged on bail
during pending of this appeal.
On the other hand learned, APP appearing on behalf of the state
opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant.
Having taken into consideration the persuasive submissions
advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant and under
the facts and circumstances of this case, this appellant Mahendra Oraon
is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Sahibganj, in S.T. No.174 of 2018, arising out of Borio (J) P.S. Case No.58
of 2018 (G.R. No.151 of 2018), subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and further subject to the condition that the
fine amount, which has been imposed by the learned court below under
section 307 of IPC, i.e. 25,000/- to be deposited by the appellant in the
court below in order to give it to the wife of the informant PW-5 by way
of compensation. The concerned learned court below shall ensure that
the said fine amount of ₹25,000/- be disbursed to the wife of the
informant PW-3 Karuna Devi, who was the wife of the victim informant
PW-5 Vijay Kumar Kujur and in default of payment of fine, learned court
below is directed to take appropriate steps. The appellant is directed to
submit the money receipt of fine amount deposited in the court below
before this Court.
Accordingly the I.A. No.11921 of 2022 gets disposed of.
Let the original lower court record be called for and this case be
listed under the heading for hearing in seriatim after receipt of the
original lower court record.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
R.Kumar
