Jharkhand High Court
Barka Marandi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 July, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 824 of 2023
Barka Marandi .... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... Respondent
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
For the Appellant : Ms. Amrita Sinha, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, A.P.P.
--------
Order No.03/dated 13.07.2023
I.A. (Cr.) No. 5339 of 2023
This Interlocutory Application has been preferred under
Section 5 of Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 111 days in
preferring this Cr. Appeal.
Heard the appellant.
Having regard to the averments made in the application
and the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, we are of the
view that the appellant was prevented from sufficient cause in filing
the appeal within the period of limitation. As such, the delay of 111
days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.
I.A.No. 5339 of 2023 stands allowed.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 824 of 2023
Heard.
Admit
Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, learned A.P.P. waives notice
on behalf of the State.
Call for the L.C.R.
I.A.No.5338 of 2023
The instant Interlocutory Application has been pressed
on behalf of the appellant, the same has been taken with the
consent of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the
State.
2. The instant Interlocutory Application has been filed for
suspension of sentence in connection with the Judgment of
conviction dated 21.11.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge-III, Sahibganj in S.T.No.239 of 2021 whereby and
whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence under
Sections 323, 325 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced
to go rigorous imprisonment for life.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has
submitted that the testimony of the witnesses will be appreciated
it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to prove the
charge beyond all shadow of doubt. The ground has been taken
that there is no motive having been discussed by any of the
testimony as to why the appellant being husband killed his wife.
4. It has been contended that the learned trial court has
convicted the appellant on the basis of the sole testimony of P.W.6
who happens to be the minor witness and on the aforesaid ground
the prayer for suspension of sentence has been made.
5. Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor
appearing for the State of Jharkhand has submitted that there is
no infirmity in the impugned Judgment, since, the conviction is
based upon the testimony of P.W. 6, who happens to be the
daughter of the deceased and after examination of her mental
capacity, her deposition was recorded by the trial court.
6. It has been submitted that the testimony of the P.W.6
has been corroborated by the doctor, who has been examined as
P.W. 9 and who has opined about the cause of death to be shock
and haemorrhage and secondly caused injury with hard and blunt
object over abdomen and have mentioned the time elapsed since
death within 36 hours.
7. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor on the basis of the
aforesaid ground has submitted that it is not a fit case where the
appellant is having the prima facie case for suspension of sentence.
8. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and
by going through the finding recorded by the learned trial court has
found therefrom that the testimony of the ocular witness more
particularly the P.W. 6 is being corroborated by the testimony of
the doctor and as such we are not prima facie satisfied for
suspending the sentence.
9. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Applications is
hereby dismissed.
10. However, any observation made herein will not prejudice
the case of the party on merit, since, the Cr. Appeal is lying pending
for its consideration.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Subhash Chand, J.)
P.K.S.
