Jharkhand High Court
Nageshwar Sao vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1981 of 2017
Nageshwar Sao ....... 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. Arwind Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl.P.P
-----------
nd
11/Dated:22 March, 2023
I.A. No.2246 of 2023
This interlocutory application has been filed under section 389(1) of
the Cr. P.C for suspension of sentence passed in consequence of the
judgment of conviction dated 05.09.2017 and order of sentence dated
08.09.2017 in Sessions Trial No.127 of 2014 by learned Additional Sessions
Judge-IV, Chatra, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27(1) of the
Arms Act and directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of
Rs.1,000/- each for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C and in default
of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Further
he has also been sentenced to undergo R.I for 3 years for the offence under
section 27(1) of the Arms Act and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of
payment of fine he shall undergo S.I for six months. He is also directed to
pay the compensation of Rs.25,000/- under section 357 of the Cr. P.C to the
informant. All the sentence are directed to run concurrently.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted by referring to the
order sheet that earlier on two occasions the application filed for suspension
of sentence although has been rejected but after its rejection one another
interlocutory application was filed being I.A. No.2581 of 2021 but the same
was dismissed as not pressed by taking into consideration the prayer made
on behalf of the appellant for renewing the prayer for bail of the appellant
after six months as appellant would complete more than eight years of
custody, the said order was passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
vide order dated 17.08.2021.
It has further been stated in the interlocutory application that after the
order dated 17.08.2021 having been passed the sentence of the another co-
convict, namely, Komal Saw was suspended vide order dated 09.02.2023 in
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1210 of 2022. It has been contended that the instant
interlocutory application has been filed in view of the observation made by
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 17.08.2021, i.e., the bail of
suspension of sentence to be renewed after completion of custody for the
period of more than eight years and the appellant has already completed the
custody of about nine years. Further, the co-convict namely, Komal Saw
since has been directed to be released on bail after suspending the sentence
vide an order passed on 09.02.2023 in I.A. No.9788 of 2022 (Cr. Appeal
(DB) No.1210 of 2022) and thereafter the instant application has been filed.
The argument has been advanced also on merit showing the
infirmities in the impugned judgment more particularly the narration of the
story in the fardbeyan said to have been committed on 20.01.2014 at about
7.45 p.m. but very surprisingly the written application communicating about
the occurrence has been given to the concerned police station only on
21.01.2014. The further infirmities has been pointed out by referring to the
testimony of the P.W-4, the informant, wherein, the informant has stated in
his testimony that immediately after the injury having been sustained to his
father, he was carried with him in hospital but in route he has died. The
question has been raised that when that is the version of the P.W-4 who has
deposed in his testimony that while going to the hospital his father has died
on 20.01.2014 and as such why the F.I.R has been instituted after lapse of
about 20 hours i.e. on 21.01.2014 at about 11.00 a.m. in the morning.
Further infirmities has been pointed out by referring to the inquest
report wherein in the inquest repot it has been shown that the dead body was
lying in the route. The said inquest report, according to the learned counsel
for the appellant, is in contradiction to the testimony of P.W-4, wherein, the
deposition has been made to the effect that while his father was being carried
to the hospital he died before reaching to the hospital, meaning thereby, his
version is totally in contradiction to the inquest report wherein it has been
referred in the inquest report that the dead body lying at 11.00 p.m. at the
place of occurrence i.e., the main road of the Tetulia village.
The further submission has been raised by referring to the testimony
of the investigating officer, P.W-6 wherein he has deposed that the fact
about the assault being given by the appellant, namely, Nageshwar Sao has
not been disclosed to him.
Learned counsel for the appellant on the basis of the aforesaid ground
has submitted that the instant application may be considered in the light of
the fact that he has already completed more than nine years of custody, one
of his co-convict, namely, Komal Saw has already been directed to be
released on bail after keeping the sentence in abeyance vide order dated
09.02.2023 as also he has got case on merit.
This Court after taking into consideration the aforesaid submission, is
hereby calling upon the State to file objection as to why the sentence in
connection with Sessions Trial No.127 of 2014 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge-IV, Chatra be not kept in abeyance.
Such objection be filed on or before the next date of hearing.
List this case on 05.04.2023.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Subhash Chand, J.)
Saket/-
