Jharkhand High Court
Pankaj Rajak vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 May, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
------
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.153 of 2023
With
I.A. No.2927 of 2023
------
Pankaj Rajak, aged about 34 years, S/o Late Narayan Rajak
.... .... 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. Manoj Kr. Choubey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl. P.P.
------
th
06/Dated:11 May,2023
Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, learned Spl. P.P. for the State by referring to
the order dated 19.04.2023 has submitted that the objection in pursuant to the
aforesaid order is ready but could not be filed.
2. However, copy of the same has been served upon the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant, hence, he seeks leave of this Court to file the
same.
3. Let him do so.
4. Let that objection be taken on record.
I.A. No.2927 of 2023
5. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under
Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence dated
05.12.2022 in connection with Balidih P.S. Case No.138 of
2015, corresponding to G.R. No.1511 of 2015 in Sessions Trial
No.234 of 2016, for the offence registered under Sections
307/323/341/326/448/504 read with Section 34 of the IPC and
later on Section 302 of the IPC was added.
6. The matter was heard on 19.04.2023 and on consideration
of the submission made on behalf of the appellant that the
deceased, although has sustained injury but after lapse of 58
days from the date of sustaining injury, has died, but, his
statement has not been recorded by the Investigating Officer, so
as to know the culpability of the appellant in causing
occurrence.
Further ground was taken that the deceased has been
discharged from the Hospital and reached to the house and
again carried to the Rajendra Institute of Medical Science,
where he has died and the medical report shows the cause of
death due to Septicaemia with Cardiac Respiratory failure.
7. The objection was sought for from the State, in pursuant
thereto, the objection has been filed.
8. Mr. Manoj Kr. Choubey, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, has submitted by referring to the objection filed on
behalf of the State that save and except, the reiteration of the
testimony of witnesses, there is nothing on record and hence,
taking into consideration the fact that the deceased has died as
per the medical report due to Septicaemia with Cardiac
Respiratory failure and the statement of the deceased was not
recorded, even though, he has died after lapse of 58 days from
the date of sustaining injury and even, he has discharged from
the Hospital, but even then, while he was in the house, no such
statement has been made by the deceased showing the
culpability of the commission of crime by the appellant.
9. Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, learned Spl. P.P. appearing for
the State of Jharkhand has submitted by referring to the
testimony of witnesses as referred in the impugned judgment of
conviction and has submitted that since the prosecution has
been able to prove the charge beyond all shadow of doubts,
therefore, it is not a fit case where the sentence is to be
suspended.
10. We, after having heard the learned counsel for the parties,
perused the documents available on record and after going
through finding recorded by the learned trial Court in the
impugned judgment as also the averment made in the objection
affidavit, have found therefrom that the deceased has sustained
injury and carried to the Hospital where he remained for getting
treatment and there is no report of the Doctor that during that
period, he was senseless, rather, it has come in the testimony of
the Doctor that he was discharged from the Hospital and
reached to the house again when his physical condition was
deteriorated, he was carried to the Rajendra Institute of Medical
Science where he died.
11. But even after lapse of 58 days from the date of sustaining
injury, the deceased has not disclosed the name of the appellant
as also it has not come in the testimony that the deceased was
senseless.
12. This Court in view thereof, is of the view that the
appellant has been able to make out a prima-facie case for
suspension of sentence.
13. Accordingly, the interlocutory application being I.A.
No.2927 of 2023 is allowed.
14. In consequence thereof, the appellant, above named, is
directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Sessions Judge, Bokaro in connection with Balidih P.S. Case
No.138 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No.1511 of 2015 in
Sessions Trial No.234 of 2016.
15. 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.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Subhash Chand, J.)
Rohit/-
