Jharkhand High Court
Sonaram Hembram Aged About 46 ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 March, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 184 of 2023
With
I.A. Nos. 2096 of 2023 & 1479 of 2023
---------
1. Sonaram Hembram aged about 46 years, son of Suniya Hembram, r/o village
Pedampur, P.O. and P.S. Kharsawan, District-Seraikella Kharsawan.
2. Langru Hembram @ Langru Hambrom, aged about 33 years, son of Suniya
Hembram, r/o village Pedampur, P.O. and P.S. Kharsawan, District-
Seraikella Kharsawan.
3. ManSingh Hembram @ ManSingh Hembrom aged about 37 years, son of
Tantu Hembram.
4. Geju Hembram age about 39 years, son of Sahel Hembram.
All are resident of Padampur, P.O. and P.S. Kharsawan, District-Seraikella
Kharsawan.
....... 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. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Satish Kr. Prasad, APP
-----------
th
05/Dated: 16 March, 2023
I.A. No.2096 of 2023:
1. This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 19
days, which has occurred in preferring this appeal.
2. No counter to the delay condonation application has been filed.
3. Heard the parties.
4. This Court taking into consideration the reason assigned in the instant
interlocutory application, is of the view that the appellants were prevented
from sufficient cause in filing the appeal.
5. Accordingly, taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, this interlocutory
application is allowed and the delay of 19 days in preferring this appeal, is
hereby condoned.
6. In view thereof, the instant interlocutory application stands disposed of.
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 184 of 2023:
7. Admit.
8. Call for the lower court record.
I.A. No. 1479 of 2023:
9. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the instant application
has been heard which has been filed on behalf of the appellants under
Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence
passed in consequence of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 14.11.2022 and 19.11.2022 respectively in connection with S.T. Case
No. 245 of 2013 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Seraikella.
10.Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted by referring to the
impugned judgment that the conviction is based only on vague and omnibus
allegations, as such, it is a case where the sentence is fit to be suspended.
11.It has been submitted by referring to the testimony of prosecution witnesses
wherein it has been deposed by them that they have brutally assaulted the
deceased but there is no conclusive proof of the same since there are
contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses.
12.While on the other hand, Mr. Satish Kr. Prasad, learned APP has vehemently
opposed the application for suspension of sentence by advancing the
submission that the P.W. 5, who is the husband, is the eye witness to the
occurrence and the learned trial court after taking into consideration the
testimony of P.W. 5 being corroborated by other witnesses including the
evidence of doctor, has convicted the appellants, as such, there is no prima
facie case available for suspension of sentence.
13.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through
the impugned judgment, is of the prima facie view that although the appeal
is pending, as such, we are not considering the issue on merit but taking into
consideration the testimony of P.W. 5, being the eye witness, who happens
to be the husband of the deceased, as also being corroborated by the
testimony of other witnesses, this Court is not prima facie satisfied to allow
the instant application.
14.Hence, the prayer for suspension of sentence is hereby rejected.
15. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1479 of 2023 stands rejected.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Subhash Chand, J.)
Saurabh/-
