Jharkhand High Court
Sukhram Champia vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 July, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 559 of 2023
-----
Sukhram Champia .... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-------
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Sunita Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P.
------
th
Order No. 03/Dated 20 July, 2023
I.A. No. 3629 of 2023
The instant interlocutory application has been filed
under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on
behalf of appellant, named above, for suspension of sentence
during the pendency of the instant appeal after suspending
the impugned order of sentence dated 09.02.2023 passed by
the learned Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in S.T. Case No. 180 of
2018 arising out of Chhotanagra P.S. Case No. 01 of 2018,
whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for
the offence under Section 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo life
imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence u/S
302/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine S.I. for six
months and has further been sentenced R.I. for five years for
the offence under Section 201/34 IPC.
2. The matter was heard by this Court on 30th June,
2023.
3. This Court considered the grounds agitated on behalf
of appellant for suspension of sentence whereby by making
reference of the testimony of P.W. 1, who happens to be the
wife of the deceased has deposed, it was submitted that victim
had seen her husband along with appellant as also other
accused persons, accused No. 1 and 3. It has further been
contended that the basis of conviction is confessional
statement of accused no. 1 and accused no. 3 and on their
confession the prosecution story has been narrated of the
recovery of the axe (tangi), the weapon which was used in
giving assault to the deceased. Further submission was made
that since it is a case of last seen which is to be based upon
the circumstantial evidence but merely on account of blood
stained soil having been found by the Investigating Officer in
course of investigation and FSL report shows that the said
blood to be of human being having B+ group, but the axe was
not found to be blood stained and therefore, the ground has
been agitated that it is a case where the chain is not complete
and as such, it is a fit case where the sentence may be
suspended.
4. This Court considering the aforesaid submission has
called upon the State to file objection.
5. In terms thereof, objection affidavit has been filed by
the State.
6. Mr. B.N. Ojha, learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer
for suspension of sentence but fact that axe was not found
with blood stained has not been disputed as there is nothing
to that effect in the order impugned. However, referring to
objection affidavit, it has been submitted that if sentence will
be kept in abeyance, there is likelihood of aggravation of law
and order situation, hence, on that ground the prayer for
keeping the sentence in abeyance has been opposed.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties,
perused the documents available on record as also the finding
recorded by learned trial Court in the impugned judgment,
wherefrom it is evident that the case is based upon the last
seen theory meaning thereby the principle applicable to
establish the charge is on the basis of circumstantial evidence
prevailed in this case.
8. The main contention raised on behalf of appellant is
that the prosecution story is of assaulting the deceased by axe
but the said axe was not found to be with blood stain and as
such the completion of chain, according to learned counsel for
the appellant, is not complete which is the basic requirement
in the case of conviction based upon circumstantial evidence.
9. This Court is in agreement with such submission. So
far as the ground that if appellant will be released from
judicial custody issue of law and order will be there, which
according to our considered view, cannot be a ground for
negating the right of liberty merely on the basis of
apprehension as has been shown in the objection affidavit and
report to that effect has been appended with the affidavit.
10. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact, is of
the view that the appellant has been able to make out a prima
facie case for suspension of sentence. Accordingly, the instant
interlocutory application stands allowed.
11. In consequence thereof, the appellant herein, is
directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand ) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions
Judge, Chaibasa in S.T. Case No. 180 of 2018 arising out of
Chhotanagra P.S. Case No. 01 of 2018.
12. It is made clear that any observation made herein
will not prejudice the issue on merit as the appeal is lying
pending for its consideration.
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 559 of 2023
13. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
14. Admit.
15. Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor waives notice on behalf of respondent-State.
16. Call for L.C.R.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Subhash Chand, J.)
Alankar/
