Manki Bandiyan vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 1298 Jhar

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                            Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 186 of 2023

          1.Manki Bandiyan
          2.Jodde Bandiyan @ Jote                         ........... 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. Navneet Sahay, Advocate
         For the State          : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P.
                                ----------------------------
                   rd
      04/Dated: 23 March, 2023

          I.A. No.1859 of 2023:

This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 19 days, which has occurred in preferring this appeal.

No counter to the delay condonation application has been filed. Heard the parties.

This Court taking into consideration the reasons assigned in the instant interlocutory application, is of the view that the appellants were prevented from sufficient cause in filing the appeal.

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.

In view thereof, the instant interlocutory application stands disposed of.

Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 186 of 2023:

Admit.

Call for the lower court records.

I.A. No. 1481 of 2023:

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.

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.

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.

While on the other hand, Mr. Saket Kumar, 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.

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.

Hence, the prayer for suspension of sentence is, hereby, rejected. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1481 of 2023 stands rejected.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Subhash Chand, J.) Rohit Pandey/-