Jagdish Rana And Anr vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 2423 Jhar

                                         1


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                        Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 339 of 2021
                                        With
                               I.A. No. 5913 of 2023
                                       ---------

     Jagdish Rana and Anr.                       .......       Appellants
                             Versus
     The State of Jharkhand                      .......       Respondent
                                       ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

----------

For the Appellants : Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, APP

-----------

th 05/Dated: 21 July, 2023 I.A. No.5913 of 2023:

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed by the appellant no.2, namely, Shankar Rana, under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. seeking therein suspension of sentence in connection with the judgment of conviction dated 26.08.2021 and order of sentence dated 31.08.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII-cum-Special Judge Crime Against Women, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No. 04 of 2021 arising out of Barkatha P.S. Case No. 118 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. No. 1175 of 2020, by which the present applicant/appellant no.2 has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC.

2. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant, the applicant herein, that the prosecution has miserably failed to substantiate the guilt as would be evident from the testimony of the witnesses who have not fully supported the prosecution version.

It has been contended that death is accidental since the sleepers of the deceased was found just near the well which itself is substantial evidence to come to the conclusion that it is the accidental death due to drowning in the well. But, the learned trial court has not appreciate the defence statement as recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein the defence was taken that the deceased in order to respond to the natures call, in her way, had gone to the well and there she might have fallen down due to which the death has

occurred, hence, it cannot be said that the prosecution has established the guilt beyond all shadow of doubt.

3. While, on the other hand, Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, learned APP appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has submitted that it is incorrect on the part of the appellant to take the ground that the prosecution version has not been supported by the prosecution witnesses.

It has been submitted by him that all the witnesses have supported the prosecution version coupled with the fact that the demand of dowry has also been substantiated as would be evident from the testimony of the witnesses.

Learned APP, on the aforesaid premise, has submitted that it is not a fit case where the sentence may be kept in abeyance.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the LCR as also the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned order.

5. It is evident from the testimony of the witnesses as available in the LCR that all the witnesses have supported the prosecution version. The doctor has also opined that the death was due to ante-mortem drowning. The investigating officer has also supported the prosecution version.

So far as the defence version is concerned, as one of the grounds has been taken, this Court on perusal of the LCR wherein the defence has also examined two witnesses for corroboration of the defence version as recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., but, it is evident that even the defence witnesses have not supported the defence of the appellant, the applicant herein.

Further, the learned trial court has based the conviction on the applicability of the principle laid down under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and it prima facie appears after coming to the conclusion that all the ingredients of Section 304-B are available.

6. This Court, on the basis of the aforesaid discussion, is of the view that it is not a case where the appellant has been able to make out a prima facie case for suspension of sentence.

7. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application stands rejected.

8. However, any observation made hereinabove, will not prejudice the merit of the case since the appeal is lying pending.

Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 339 of 2021:

9. Office is directed to prepare the paper-book and supply to the concerned parties.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Subhash Chand, J.)

Saurabh/-